Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies

A CHRIST-FOLLOWER’S LOGIC REFERENCE

Petros B. Scientia

 

Real Reality Books

Portage, Wisconsin

Advance Reading Copy Notice

This document is likely to change since it’s an advance reading copy (ARC). To assure you have the latest version, navigate to:

http://RealReality.org/downloads.

The purpose of this advance copy is to help identify errors of any kind or to gain insights from our readers. Reviews are also welcome. Please contact me through this Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/knowingrealreality/

You can expect that this book will change over time. Check back at the Real Reality, Inc. website and get your copy of the finished book for free when the book goes to print and this is no longer an advance reading copy. You’ll know because this notice will no longer appear.

http://RealReality.org/downloads

 

 

Copyright © 2015, 2018 by Petros B. Scientia

All rights reserved. Please reproduce, distribute, and transmit this book intact in every form and by every means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods. Use quotations as permitted by copyright law. Email this eBook to everyone you love. Use messenger or text. Send out this link: http://RealReality.org/downloads to everyone you know.

The use of a quotation doesn’t necessarily imply endorsement of the person or source of the quotation or the information in the quotation.

Library of Congress Control Number:2019917817

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data

 

Names: Scientia, Petros B., author.

Title: Encyclopedia of logical fallacies : a Christ-follower’s logic reference / Petros B. Scientia.

Series: Real Faith & Reason Library

Description: Poynette, WI: Real Reality Books, 2020.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019917817 | ISBN 978-0-9860972-8-7

Subjects: LCSH Christianity–Philosophy. | Logic. | Apologetics. | Authority–Religious aspects. | BISAC RELIGION / Philosophy | YOUNG ADULT NONFICTION / Philosophy | PHILOSOPHY / Epistemology

Classification: LCC BT1103 .S35 2020 | DDC 239–dc23

 

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LOGICAL FALLACIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Why Have an Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies

Fallacies and Logic Terms

Abductive Fallacy

Abuse-of-Statistics Fallacy

Abusive-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Accident Fallacy

According-to-the-Rules Fallacy

Addiction Mistake

Ad-Hoc-Rescue Fallacy

Ad-Hominem-Ridicule Fallacy

Ad-Hominem-Tu-Quoque Fallacy

Ad-Ignorantiam-Question Fallacy

Ad-Misericordiam Fallacy

Ad-Personam Fallacy

Adultery Mistake

Affirming-the-Consequent Fallacy

Affirming-the-Disjunct Fallacy

Against-Self-Confidence Fallacy

Agnostic-Definist Fallacy

Agnosticism Mistake

Alcohol-Addiction Mistake

Allness Fallacy

All-Or-Nothing Fallacy

Alternative-Advance Fallacy

Alternative-Syllogism Fallacy

Amazing-Familiarity Fallacy

Ambiguity-Effect Fallacy

Ambiguity Fallacy

Ambiguous-Assertion Fallacy

Ambiguous-Collective Fallacy

Ambiguous-Middle Fallacy

Ancestral-Sin Fallacy

Anchoring Fallacy

Anecdotal-Evidence-Presented-as-Proof Fallacy

Anonymous-Authority Fallacy

Antecedent-Assumed Fallacy

Antecedent Fallacy

Anti-Concreteness-Mentality Fallacy

Apophasis Fallacy

Appeal-to-Accomplishment Fallacy

Appeal-to-Age Fallacy

Appeal-to-Anger Fallacy

Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy

Appeal-to-Bribery Fallacy

Appeal-to-Celebrity Fallacy

Appeal-to-Charm Fallacy

Appeal-to-Coincidence Fallacy

Appeal-to-Common-Folk Fallacy

Appeal-to-Common-Practice Fallacy

Appeal-to-Complexity Fallacy

Appeal-to-Confidence Fallacy

Appeal-to-Control-of-News-Media Fallacy

Appeal-to-Contempt Fallacy

Appeal-to-Control-of-Scientific-Funding Fallacy

Appeal-to-Control-of-Scientific-Journals Fallacy

Appeal-to-Definition Fallacy

Appeal-to-Desperation Fallacy

Appeal-to-Emotion Fallacy

Appeal-to-Extremes Fallacy

Appeal-to-Fake-Hope Fallacy

Appeal-to-Faulty-Authority Fallacy

Appeal-to-Fear Fallacy

Appeal-to-Flattery Fallacy

Appeal-to-Force Fallacy

Appeal-to-Gravity Fallacy

Appeal-to-Guilt Fallacy

Appeal-to-Heaven Fallacy

Appeal-to-Ignorance Fallacy

Appeal-to-Intimidation Fallacy

Appeal-to-Motive Fallacy

Appeal-to-Mystery Fallacy

Appeal-to-Nature Fallacy

Appeal-to-Novelty Fallacy

Appeal-to-Offense Fallacy

Appeal-to-Patriotism Fallacy

Appeal-to-Poetic-Language Fallacy

Appeal-to-Pragmatism Fallacy

Appeal-to-Presentation Fallacy

Appeal-to-Pride Fallacy

Appeal-to-Probability Fallacy

Appeal-to-Rationalism Fallacy

Appeal-to-Ridicule Fallacy

Appeal-to-Rugged-Individualism Fallacy

Appeal-to-Self-Interest Fallacy

Appeal-to-Slogan Fallacy

Appeal-to-Spite Fallacy

Appeal-to-the-Exotic Fallacy

Appeal-to-Tradition Fallacy

Appeal-to-Vulgarity Fallacy

Appeal-to-Wealth Fallacy

Apples-and-Oranges Fallacy

Apriorism Fallacy

Arbitrary-Thinking Fallacy

Arcane-Explanation Fallacy

Arguing-a-Minor-Point-While-Ignoring-the-Main-Point Fallacy

Argument-by-Consequences Fallacy

Argument-by-Denial Fallacy

Argument-by-Omniscience Fallacy

Argument-by-Personal-Astonishment Fallacy

Argument-by-Question Fallacy

Argument-by-Rhetorical-Question Fallacy

Argument-by-Selective-Refutation Fallacy

Argument-by-Vehemence Fallacy

Argument-from-Design Fallacy

Argument-from-Hearsay Fallacy

Argument-from-Silence Fallacy

Argument-from-Small-Numbers Fallacy

Argument-from-the-Negative Fallacy

Argument-to-Moderation Fallacy

Argument-to-Veneration Fallacy

Argumentum-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Argumentum-ad-Imaginibus Fallacy

Argumentum-Ad-Invidiam Fallacy

As-Far-as-Anyone-Knows Fallacy

Assuming-Facts-Not-In-Evidence Fallacy

Assuming-the-Cause Fallacy

Assumption-Correction-Assumption Fallacy

Assumptive-Language Fallacy

Atheist-Definist Fallacy

Atheist-Phobia Mistake

Authority-of-the-Select-Few Fallacy

Autistic-Certainty Fallacy

Availability-Heuristic Fallacy

Avoiding-Specific-Numbers Fallacy

Avoiding-the-Issue Fallacy

Axiomatic-Thinking Fallacy

Bad-Statistical-Data Fallacy

Bait-and-Switch Fallacy

Bandwagon Fallacy

Barefoot Fallacy

Barking-Cat Fallacy

Barnum-Effect Fallacy

Base-Rate-Neglect Fallacy

Bayes’-Theorem Fallacy

Begging-the-Question Fallacy

Belief-Perseverance Fallacy

Best-in-Field Fallacy

Biased-Authority Fallacy

Biased-Calculation Fallacy

Biased-Conclusion-from-Statistics Fallacy

Biased-Experimental-Method Fallacy

Biased-Method Fallacy

Biased-Observational-Method Fallacy

Biased-Reporting-of-Observations Fallacy

Biased-Reporting-of-Statistics Fallacy

Biased-Statistical-Method Fallacy

Big-Lie Fallacy

Bigotry-Fallacy

Bizarre-Hypothesis Fallacy

Blind-Men-and-an-Elephant Fallacy

Blind-Obedience Fallacy

Bold-Faced-Lie Fallacy

Brainwashing Fallacy

Butterfly-Logic Fallacy

Burden-of-Proof Fallacy

Burning-Bush Fallacy

Cabal-Message-Control Fallacy

Camel’s-Nose Fallacy

Canceling-Hypotheses Fallacy

Capturing-the-Naïve Fallacy

Category-Mistake Fallacy

Causal Fallacy

Cause-Multiplication Fallacy

Causal-Reductionism Fallacy

Changing-the-Subject Fallacy

Cherishing-the-Zombie Fallacy

Chicken-Little-Fear Fallacy

Chronological-Snobbery Fallacy

Circular-Cause-and-Consequence Fallacy

Circular-Generalization Fallacy

Circular-Reasoning Fallacy

Circular-Reference Fallacy

Circumstantial-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Claiming-the-Moral-High-Ground Fallacy

Claiming-the-Neutral-Position Fallacy

Claim-of-Unknowables Fallacy

Cliché-Thinking Fallacy

Clustering-Illusion Fallacy

Cogency Fallacy

Complex-Hypothesis Fallacy

Composition Fallacy

Commutation-of-Conditionals Fallacy

Conceptual Fallacy

Confirmation-Bias Fallacy

Confabulation Fallacy

Confusing-Abstraction-with-Reality Fallacy

Confusing-Advantage-for-Mechanism Fallacy

Confusing-Contradiction-with-Contrariety Fallacy

Confusing-Explanation-with-Proof Fallacy

Confusing-“If”-with-“If-and-Only-If” Fallacy

Confusing-a-Model-with-Reality Fallacy

Confusing-a-Necessary-Condition-with-a-Sufficient-Condition Fallacy

Confusing-Ontology-with-Epistemology Fallacy

Confusing-Rationalized-Faith-with-God’s-Faith Fallacy

Confusing-Pseudo-Truth-with-Truth Fallacy

Confusing-Theory-with-Reality Fallacy

Confusing-Worldview-with-Reality Fallacy

Conjunction-Effect Fallacy

Conjunction Fallacy

Consensual-Sin Fallacy

Conspiracy Theory Fallacy

Contention-Against Christ Fallacy

Contention-Against the Bible Fallacy

Context-Imposition Fallacy

Continuum Fallacy

Contradiction Fallacy

Contradictory-Premises Fallacy

Contrarian-Argument Fallacy

Counter-Induction Fallacy

Converse-Accident Fallacy

Cool-Idolatry Fallacy

Correlation-Proves-Causation Fallacy

Correlative-Based Fallacy

Corrupt-Source Fallacy

Counterfactual Fallacy

Counter-Induction Fallacy

Crackers-in-the-Pantry Fallacy

Creating-Misgivings Fallacy

Creative-Paraphrase Fallacy

Crucial-Experiment Fallacy

Cutting-Off-Discussion Fallacy

Dangling-Comparative Fallacy

Darkness-Light-Substitute Fallacy

Debate-Mindset Fallacy

Deceptive-Concession Fallacy

Declaring-Victory Fallacy

Deductive Fallacy

Default-Position Fallacy

Defining-a-Word-in-Terms-of-Itself Fallacy

Defining-Terms-Too-Broadly-and-Too-Narrowly Fallacy

Defining-Terms-Too-Broadly Fallacy

Defining-Terms-Too-Narrowly Fallacy

Dehumanizing Fallacy

Demagoguery Fallacy

Demanding-an-Uneven-Burden-of-Proof Fallacy

Democracy-Panacea Fallacy

Demonizing Fallacy

Denialism Fallacy

Denying-the-Antecedent Fallacy

Denying-the-Conjunct Fallacy

Denying-the-Correlative-Conjunction Fallacy

Determinism Fallacy

Didit Fallacy

Diminished-Responsibility Fallacy

Discrimination Fallacy

Disjunction Fallacy

Dismissing-Personal-Testimony Fallacy

Disjunctive Syllogism

Fallacist’s Fallacy

Distorted-Evidence Fallacy

Distortion-of-Senses-in-Observation Fallacy

Division Fallacy

Dodging-by-Answering-a-Different-Question Fallacy

Dodging-by-Answering-a-Question-with-a-Question Fallacy

Dodging-the-Question Fallacy

Downward-Spiral Fallacy

Drug-Addiction Mistake

Double-Entendre Fallacy

Drawing-a-Negative-Conclusion-from-Affirmative-Premises Fallacy

Eclecticism Fallacy

Education-Panacea Fallacy

Elephant-Repellent Fallacy

Emotion-Based-Decision-Making-Phenomenon Fallacy

Emotive-Language Fallacy

Emphasis Fallacy

Emphasis-by-Abstraction Fallacy

Entertainment-Addiction Mistake

Envy Fallacy

Epistemic Fallacy

Equating-Opposites Fallacy

Equivocation Fallacy

Error-in-Observation Fallacy

Error-in-Sampling Fallacy

Escape-to-the-Future Fallacy

Escape-via-Ignorance Fallacy

Essentializing Fallacy

Etymological Fallacy

Euphemism Fallacy

Evolution-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

Exaggeration Fallacy

Exception-that-Proves-the-Rule Fallacy

Exclusive-“Or” Fallacy

Exclusive-Premises Fallacy

Exclusivity Fallacy

Existential-Instantiation Fallacy

Experiential-Blank-Argument Fallacy

Experimenter-Bias Fallacy

Extended-Analogy Fallacy

Extension Fallacy

External-Inconsistency Fallacy

Fading-Affect-Bias Fallacy

Failure-to-Consider-the-Logical-Consequences-of-an-Assertion Fallacy

Failure-to-Distinguish-Reality-from-Worldview Fallacy

Failure-to-Elucidate Fallacy

Failure-to-Make-the-Necessary-Observations Fallacy

Failure-to-Look-at-Both-Sides Fallacy

Failure-to-Observe-because-of-a-Closed-Mind Fallacy

Failure-to-State-Assumptions Fallacy

Failure-to-State-Conclusions Fallacy

Failure-to-State-Position Fallacy

Failure-to-State-Premises Fallacy

Fait-Accompli Tactic

Fake-Consensus Fallacy

Fake-Ignorance-of-God Fallacy

Fake-Precision Fallacy

Fallacious Abstraction

Fallacy Abuse

False-Accusation Fallacy

False-Attribution Fallacy

False-Bigotry Fallacy

False-Bravado Fallacy

False-Choice Fallacy

False-Conversion Fallacy

False-Criteria Fallacy

False-Dichotomy Fallacy

False-Dilemma Fallacy

False-Faith Fallacy

False-Freedom Fallacy

False-Open-Mindedness Fallacy

False-Premise Fallacy

False-Prophecy Fallacy

False-Tolerance Fallacy

False-Trilemma Fallacy

False-Witness Fallacy

Falsification Fallacy

Falsified-Inductive-Generalization Fallacy

Fantasy-Projection Fallacy

Fast-Talking Fallacy

Faulty-Analogy Fallacy

Faulty-Comparison Fallacy

Faulty-Sign Fallacy

Fear-Mongering Fallacy

Feigned-Powerlessness Fallacy

Fighting-Fire-with-Fire Fallacy

Finish-the-Job Fallacy

Fishing-for-Data Fallacy

Flat-Earth-Navigation-Syndrome Fallacy

Flawed-Evidence Fallacy

Flimflam Fallacy

Floating-Abstraction Fallacy

Forestalling-Disagreement Fallacy

Formal Fallacy

Formally-Correct Fallacy

Foundational Fallacy

Four-Terms Fallacy

Framing Fallacy

Frozen-Abstraction Fallacy

Furtive Fallacy

Galileo-Wannabe Fallacy (appeal to pity)

Galileo-Wannabe Fallacy (formal)

Gambler’s Fallacy

Gambling-Addiction Fallacy

Gaps Fallacy

Garden-Path-Ambiguity Fallacy

Gaslighting Fallacy

General-Rule Fallacy

Generalizing-from-a-Hypostatization Fallacy

Genetic Fallacy

Gibberish Fallacy

God-Complex Fallacy

God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

God-Wildcard Fallacy

Golden-Hammer Fallacy

Government-Solipotence Fallacy

Grasping-at-Straws Fallacy

Group Fallacy

Groupthink Fallacy

Guilt-by-Association-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Guilt-by-Accusation Fallacy

Guilt-Induction Fallacy

Halo-Effect Fallacy

Harassment Fallacy

Hasty-Generalization Fallacy

Hate-Mongering Fallacy

Head-in-the-Sand Fallacy

Heart Fallacy

Hedging Fallacy

Hidden-Assumption Fallacy

Hidden-Presupposition Fallacy

Hifalutin’-Denunciations Fallalcy

Hindsight-Bias Fallacy

Hobson’s-Choice Fallacy

Homonymy Fallacy

Hooded-Man Fallacy

Human-Goodness Fallacy

Hyperbole Fallacy

Hypocrisy Fallacy

Hypostatization Fallacy

Hypothetical Syllogism

Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact Fallacy

Hysteron-Proteron Fallacy

Idiosyncratic-Language Fallacy

Idola-Fori Fallacy

Idola-Fori Fallacy (Giving Names to Nonexistent Things)

Idola-Fori Fallacy (Confused or Ill-Defined Names)

Idola-Specus Fallacy

Idola-Theatri Fallacy

Idola-Tribus Fallacy

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Worldview)

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Desire)

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Sensory Limitation)

Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Sensory Deception)

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Impressions)

If-God-Exists Fallacy

Ignorance-of-Refutation Fallacy

Ignoring-Differences Fallacy

Ignoring-Historical-Example Fallacy

Illicit-Contraposition Fallacy

Illicit-Major Fallacy

Illicit-Minor Fallacy

Illicit-Observation Fallacy

Illicit-Process Fallacy

Illicit-Substitution-of-Identicals Fallacy

Imaginary-Evidence Fallacy

Imagination-Based-Reasoning Fallacy

Implied-Unsupported-Assertion Fallacy

Impossible-Conditions Fallacy

In-a-Certain-Respect-and-Simply Fallacy

Inability-to-Observe Fallacy

Incomplete-Comparison Fallacy

Incongruent-Thinking Fallacy

Inconsistency Fallacy

Inconsistent-Comparison Fallacy

Induction-for-Deduction Fallacy

Inductive Fallacy

Inevitability Fallacy

Inference-from-a-Label Fallacy

Infiltration-Tactic Fallacy

Infinite-Possibilities Fallacy

Infinite-Regress Fallacy

Inflation-of-Conflict Fallacy

Information-Overload Fallacy

Innuendo Fallacy

Insignificant Fallacy

Instantiation-of-the-Unsuccessful Fallacy

Intensional Fallacy

Internal-Inconsistency Fallacy

Intimidation Fallacy

Invalid-Form-using-“Or” Fallacy

Invincible-Ignorance Fallacy

Invincible-Authority Fallacy

Ion Fallacy

Irrelevance-Fallacy

Irrelevant-Conclusion Fallacy

Irrelevant-Evidence Fallacy

Irrelevant-Purpose Fallacy

Irrelevant-Question Fallacy

Irrelevant-Thesis Fallacy

Isolated-Examples Fallacy

Is-Ought Fallacy

It-Could-Be-Better Fallacy

It-Could-Be-Worse Fallacy

Jingoism Fallacy

Joint-Effect Fallacy

Judgmental Fallacy

Just-In-Case Fallacy

Just-World-Hypothesis Fallacy

Knights-and-Knaves Fallacy

Lack-of-Imagination Fallacy

Law-of-Cause-and-Effect

Law-of-Cause-and-Effect Fallacy

Law-of-Non-Contradiction Fallacy

Least-Plausible-Hypothesis Fallacy

Lexical-Ambiguity Fallacy

Lie-Within-the-Lie Fallacy

Limited-Depth Fallacy

Limited-Scope Fallacy

Limiting-Presuppositions Fallacy

Lip-Service Fallacy

Living-Rent-Free Fallacy

Loaded-Language Fallacy

Loaded-Sample Fallacy

Lobbying Fallacy

Loki’s-Wager Fallacy

Make-Believe-Reality Fallacy

Ludic-Fallacy

Lurking-Variable Fallacy

Magical-Thinking Fallacy

Magical-Thinking Fallacy Abuse

Magic-Words Fallacy

Magician’s-Choice Fallacy

Majoring-in-the-Minors Fallacy

Marginalizing Fallacy

Martyr-Complex Fallacy

Matter-of-Interpretation Fallacy

McNamara Fallacy

Meaningless-Question Fallacy

Message-Control Fallacy

Metaphorical-Ambiguity Fallacy

Methodological-Naturalism Fallacy

Middle-Puzzle-Part Fallacy

Mind-reading Fallacy

Misdirection Fallacy

Misinterpretation Fallacy

Misleading-Context Fallacy

Misleading-Vividness Fallacy

Misquoting Fallacy

Misreporting-in-Mass-Media Fallacy

Misrepresenting-the-Facts Fallacy

Missing-Link Fallacy

Missing-the-Point Fallacy

Mistaking-an-Interpretation-for-an-Observation Fallacy

Misunderstanding-the-Nature-of-Statistics Fallacy

Misuse-of-Averages Fallacy

Misuse-of-Etymology Fallacy

Misused-Statistics Fallacy

Mistaking-Interpretation-for-Observation Fallacy

Mistaking-Substance-for-Concept Fallacy

Modal Fallacy

Monopolizing-the-Conversation Fallacy

Monopolizing-the-Question Fallacy

Moralistic Fallacy

Morton’s-Fork Fallacy

Motivated-Reasoning Fallacy

Moving-the-Goalposts Fallacy

Multiple-Comparisons Fallacy

Multiple-Question Fallacy

Murder Mistake

Nominalization Fallacy

Naturalism-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

Naturalistic Fallacy

Naturalistic-Paradigm Fallacy

Necessity Fallacy

Needling Fallacy

Negating-Antecedent-and-Consequent Fallacy

Negative-Premise Fallacy

Nesting Fallacies

NIGY-Fallacy

Nobody’s-Perfect Fallacy

Normalization Fallacy

Non-Sequitur Fallacy

No-True-Scientist Fallacy

No-True-Scotsman Fallacy

Not-Connecting-the-Dots Fallacy

Not-Invented-Here Fallacy

Notable-Effort Fallacy

Objectification Fallacy

Observation-Distortion-by-Preconceived-Ideas Fallacy

Observation-Expectation Fallacy

Occult Fallacy

Omission Fallacy

Only-I-Can-Ask-Questions Fallacy

Ontic Fallacy

Open-Minded-Forum Fallacy

Opposition Fallacy

Ought-Is Fallacy

Outdated-Information Fallacy

Outright-Lie Fallacy

Overlooking-Secondary-Consequences Fallacy

Overton-Window Fallacy

Overwhelming-Exception Fallacy

Package-Deal Fallacy

Packing-the-House Fallacy

Paralipsis-Attack Fallacy

Paralysis-of-Analysis Fallacy

Patently-False-Statement Fallacy

Pearl-Clutching Fallacy

Peer-Pressure Fallacy

Peer-Review-Illusion Fallacy

Peirce’s-Abductive-Schema Fallacy

Perfect-Solution Fallacy

Persimplex-Responsum Fallacy

Personal-Conviction-as-Proof Fallacy

Personal-Incredulity Fallacy

Personification Fallacy

Phantom-Absurdity Fallacy

Phantom-Cause Fallacy

Phantom-Conflict Fallacy

Phantom-Distinction Fallacy

Phantom-Impossibility Fallacy

Phantom-Improbability Fallacy

Phantom-Logic Fallacy

Phantom-Probability Fallacy

Phantom-Proof Fallacy

Phantom-Relationship Fallacy

Phantom-Science Fallacy

Phantom-Time Fallacy

Pigeonholing Fallacy

Pious-Fraud Fallacy

POE-Game Fallacy

Poisoning-the-Well Fallacy

Polarization Fallacy

Political-Correctness Fallacy

Politicking Fallacy

Politics-Abuse Fallacy

Pollyanna’s-Ploy Fallacy

Popular-Image Fallacy

Pornography-Addiction Fallacy

Possibility Fallacy

Post-Hoc-Ergo-Propter-Hoc Fallacy

Post-Modern Fallacy

Post-Truth Fallacy

Presentism Fallacy

Pressure-Tactics Fa;;acu

Presumption Fallacy

Presupposition Fallacy

Pretentious-Antecedent Fallacy

Pretentious-Premise Fallacy

Pretentiousness Fallacy

Prima-Facia Fallacy

Privileging-the-Hypothesis Fallacy

Privileging-Naturalism Fallacy

Probabilistic Fallacy

Process-Product-Ambiguity Fallacy

Projection Fallacy

Proof-by-Agnosticism Fallacy

Proof-by-Appeal-to-Materialism Fallacy

Proof-by-Appeal-to-Naturalism Fallacy

Proof-by-Assumption Fallacy

Proof-by-Atheism Fallacy

Proof-by-Confirmation-Bias Fallacy

Proof-by-Fallacy Fallacy

Proof-by-Model Fallacy

Proof-by-Relativism Fallacy

Proof-by-Theoretical-Story Fallacy

Proof-by-Uniformitarianism Fallacy

Proof-Surrogate Fallacy

Propaganda Fallacy

Propositional Fallacy

Prove-It-Thinking Fallacy

Proving-a-Premise-from-a-Conclusion Fallacy

Proving-Impossibility Fallacy

Proving-Non-Existence Fallacy

Proving-Too-Much Fallacy

Psychogenetic Fallacy

Psychological Fallacy

Psychologist’s Fallacy

Pulling-From-Air Fallacy

Putting-Words-in-Other-People’s-Mouths Fallacy

Quantificational Fallacy

Quantifier Fallacy

Quantum-Physics Fallacy

Quenching Fallacy

Question-Begging-Analogy Fallacy

Question-Begging-Complex-Question Fallacy

Question-Begging-Epithet Fallacy

Question-Begging-Rejection-of-Faith Fallacy

Quibbling Fallacy

Rationalism Paradigm

Rationalizing Fallacy

Rationalizing-Away-Observations Fallacy

Reciprocity-Norm Fallacy

Redefinition Fallacy

Red-Herring Fallacy

Reductio-ad-Hitlerum Fallacy

Reductionism Fallacy

Refusing-to-Look-at-Evidence Fallacy

Relative-Privation Fallacy

Relativism Fallacy

Relevance Fallacy

Religious-Addiction Mistake

Repeated-Assertion Fallacy

Retrogressive-Causation Fallacy

Retrospective-Determinism Fallacy

Revenge Mistake

Reverse-Halo-Effect Fallacy

Reversible-Logic Fallacy

Reversing-Cause-and-Effect Fallacy

Rewriting-History Fallacy

Rigged-Game Fallacy

Sacred-Cow Fallacy

Sanctioning-the-Devil Fallacy

Scapegoating-Fallacy

Scope-Ambiguity Fallacy

Science-Abuse Fallacy

Science-Wildcard Fallacy

Scientism Fallacy

Scoffing-Fallacy

Scope Fallacy

Secret-Knowledge Fallacy

Self-Declared-Authority Fallacy

Self-Exclusion Fallacy

Self-Referential Fallacy

Self-Referential-Incoherence Fallacy

Self-Refutation Fallacy

Self-Righteousness Fallacy

Self-Sealing-Argument Fallacy

Self-Selected-Biased Sample

Selling-the-Defect Fallacy

Sherlock-Holmes Fallacy

Shingle-Speech Fallacy

Shoehorning Fallacy

Short-Term-versus-Long-Term Fallacy

Single-Choice Fallacy

Slippery-Slope Fallacy

Slothful-Induction Fallacy

Sly-Suggestion Fallacy

Smokescreen Fallacy

Snob-Appeal Fallacy

Social-Conformance Fallacy

Socialism-Panacea Fallacy

Socratic Fallacy

Solipsistic Paradigm

Sour-Grapes Fallacy

Spamming Fallacy

Special-Pleading Fallacy

Special-Rights Fallacy

Species Fallacy

Specificity Fallacy

Speculation Fallacy

Spin-Doctoring Fallacy

Spiritual-Excuse Fallacy

Spotlight Fallacy

Squinting-Modifier Fallacy

Stacking-the-Deck Fallacy

Statement-of-Conversion Fallacy

Statism Fallacy

Statistical-Apples-and-Oranges Fallacy

Stealing Fallacy

Stereotyping Fallacy

Stolen-Concept Fallacy

Stonewalling Fallacy

Storytelling Fallacy

Straining-Gnats Fallacy

Straw-Man Fallacy

Style-over-Substance Fallacy

Subjectivity Fallacy

Subversion Fallacy

Subverted-Support Fallacy

Success-Self-Help-Cult Fallacy

Suggestion Fallacy

Summary-Dismissal Fallacy

Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Superficially-Convincing-Fog Fallacy

Suppression-of-the-Agent Fallacy

Suppressing-the-Correlative Fallacy

Suppressing-Truth-in-Unrighteousness Fallacy

Sweeping-Generalization Fallacy

Syllogistic Fallacy

Syntactic-Ambiguity Fallacy

Taboo Fallacy

Tactics-and-Mind Games

Taking-a-Quote-Out-of-Context Fallacy

Taking-Undeserved-Credit Fallacy

Tautology Fallacy

Teacher’s-We Fallacy

Texas-Sharpshooter Fallacy

Theoretical-Stories-as-Reality Fallacy

The-Way-We-Have-Always-Done-It Fallacy

Time-Pressure Fallacy

Tokenism Fallacy

Tone-Trolling Fallacy

Tone-Trolling-Phantom-Fallacy Fallacy

Tooth-Fairy-Science Fallacy

Tossing-the-Elephant Fallacy

Trolling Fallacy

True-Emotion Fallacy

Trust-Me Fallacy

Tu-Quoque Fallacy

True-Personality Fallacy

Twisting-Words Fallacy

Type-Token-Ambiguity Fallacy

Unacknowledged-Refutation Fallacy

Uncontrolled-Factors Fallacy

Understatement Fallacy

Undoability Fallacy

Uniformitarian Fallacy

Ungodly-Counsel Fallacy

Ungodly Fallacy

Ungodly-Friends Fallacy

Ungodly-Thinking Fallacy

Unintended-Self-Inclusion Fallacy

Universal-Affirmative Fallacy

Universal-Negative Fallacy

Unnatural Fallacy

Unrecorded-Observations Fallacy

Unsubstantiated-Inference Fallacy

Unteachable Fallacy

Untestability Fallacy

Unthankfulness Fallacy

Unverified-Evidence Fallacy

Unwarranted-Contrast Fallacy

Unwarranted-Extrapolation Fallacy

Use-Mention-Error Fallacy

Using-an-Unknown-as-Proof Fallacy

Utopia Fallacy

Vacuous-Explanation Fallacy

Variant-Imagization Fallacy

Verbosity Fallacy

Victim-Complex Fallacy

Victim-Stance-Complex Fallacy

Weak-Inference Fallacy

Weak-Premise Fallacy

Wicked-Alternative Fallacy

Willful-Ignorance Fallacy

Wishful-Thinking Fallacy

Word-Magic Fallacy

Worldview-as-Proof Fallacy

Definitions

Abstraction

Affirm

Antecedent

Argument

Atheistic Paradigm

Bias

Bibliolatry

Categorical Proposition

Categorical Syllogism

Circumstantial Evidence

Class

Cogency

Conclusion

Comparative

Complement

Conclusion

Conditional

Conditional Syllogism

Conjunction

Conjunctive Statement

Conjunctive Syllogism

Consequence

Consequent

Consistency

Contingent Proposition

Contraposition

Contrary Propositions

Conversion

Correlative

Counterexample

Deduction

Defeasible Position

Demagogue

Deny

Definiendum

Definiens

Determinism

Dilemma

Disjunction

Disjunctive Statement

Distributed

Empirical

Enthymeme

Epicheireme

Epistemology

Evanjellyfish Christianity

Evolutionism Paradigm

Extension

Faith

Fake News

Fallacy

Form

Generalization

Grace

Haldane’s Dilemma

Heart

Humanistic Paradigm

Hypothesis

Immediate Inference

Inclusive “Or”

Inductive Reasoning

Inference

Intensional Context

Inverse

Leibniz’s Law

Logic

Logical Argument

Major Premise

Major Term

Materialism Paradigm

Middle Term

Minor Premise

Minor Term

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism

Model

Modernism

Modifier

Narrow Scope

Necessity

Negation

Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Obversion

Occultism

Ontology

Paradigm

Particular Affirmative

Particular Negative

Perfect Syllogism

Personal Inconsistency

Post-Modernism Paradigm

Pragmatic Thinking

Predicate

Predicate Noun

Premise

Presume

Presumptive

Probability

Proposition

Quantifier

Racism Paradigm

Rational

Rationalization

Relativistic Paradigm

Rhema

Scope

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Secularistic Paradigm

Seeking Christ

Set

Sin

Skepticism Paradigm

Social Gospel

Sophistry

Sorites

Socialism

Soundness

Sound Reasoning

Statistics

Subject

Subset

Syllogism

Tautology

Theory

Token

Truism

Truth

Truth-Value

Type

Undistributed

Uniformitarianism

Ungodly Thinking Problem

Ungodly Thinking Trilemma

Valid Reasoning

Validity

Valid Logical Form

Verb

Wide Scope

Acknowledgments

About this Book

Free Stuff

How to Give these eBooks to Your Friends

The Foundation of Real Faith & Reason Library

Further Study

About the Author

 

 

 

This Book is Part of the Real Faith & Reason Library

FREE

as eBooks

 

• The three-volume set of Real Faith & Reason is a journey of spiritual growth and discernment.
  • Real Faith & Reason Volume One
  • Real Faith & Reason Volume Two
  • Real Faith & Reason Volume Three
• This is a listing of the Bible verses used in Real Faith & Reason.
  • Real Faith & Reason Scripture References
• Exposing the REAL Creation-Evolution Debate points the way to knowing Christ through the example of a debate between two men over the topic of Creation versus Evolution.
  • Exposing the REAL Creation-Evolution Debate
• The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies details over 700 fallacies and logic terms with examples.
  • Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
• The Nuts and Bolts of Being Rational goes into the nitty-gritty of the elements of rational thought and how to keep yourself from irrational traps in thinking.
  • The Nuts and Bolts of Being Rational

You can download FREE Ebooks in Epub, Mobi, and PDF formats from:

http://RealReality.org/downloads/.

 

 

Why Have an Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies

Why write another reference book on fallacies? If we search the Internet for various fallacies, we’ll find many lists and books of fallacies. Most of those lists and books have a definite anti-Christian or anti-Bible slant. We’ll find specialized fallacies that look like someone developed them to answer Christians without any counterpart to answer ungodly thinkers. For instance, we’ll find the god-of-the-gaps fallacy but no evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy or naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. We’ll find the God-did-it fallacy, usually with the “G” in lower case, but no evolution-did-it or naturalism-did-it fallacies. Also, the writers often give examples that target Christians directly and rarely give examples that target ungodly thinkers directly.

Additionally, definitions of fallacies rarely point out the common denominator of all fallacies. Fallacies are ways to make fake stuff seem like real stuff. They make real stuff look fake. Since all fallacies have this characteristic, all fallacies consist of making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true. We could categorize them as bare claims and smokescreen fallacies. Bare claims are called axiomatic thinking fallacies. That’s a fancy label. It means making up stuff. Smokescreens are coverups. They make made-up stuff seem real.

For that reason, we have fallacies here that other reference texts won’t mention. Here are a few examples.

• adultery fallacy
• ancestral sin fallacy
• appeal to control of scientific journals fallacy
• Bayes’ Theorem fallacy
• cabal message control fallacy

We have the entertainment addiction fallacy, failure to distinguish reality from worldview fallacy, and no true scientist fallacy. We also have fallacies others seldom mention like the generalizing-from-a-hypostatization fallacy. Beyond that, we have many of the terms of logic and reasoning defined. This is a reference text you’ll want to keep handy.

Some may claim things like sin or addiction aren’t fallacies. However, keep in mind that we’re defining “fallacy” as anything that blurs the line between reality and make-believe. Addictions blur that line, and they’re the result of blurring that line. Sin always blurs that line, and it’s the result of blurring that line in every case. The lies we tell ourselves that lead to sin or addictions are sometimes tricky and sometimes just bald-faced lies.

It seems ungodly thinkers think they have a lock on logic and science. They come from a worldview that believes Christians are irrational because they’re Christians. That’s probably because ungodly thinkers have taken over every form of communication including the schools, news, entertainment, and books on fallacies. Within that bubble, ungodly thinkers can convince themselves of their wisdom, knowledge, and intellectual superiority. That’s ironic since the nature of logic eliminates the possibility for rational thought without divine revelation. In other words, ungodly thinkers have doomed themselves to basing every conclusion on fallacies.

While the Real Faith & Reason set answers the questions in great detail, we can state the reasons for the ungodly thinker’s problem simply and succinctly. And we can state the reasons Christians don’t share this problem just as simply and succinctly.

Sound reasoning requires true premises. In other words, we can’t use unproven statements to prove other statements. We can’t use unproven premises to prove conclusions.

Ungodly thinkers have no path to a true premise. How do they prove their premise true? They can’t use another premise they can’t prove true. Where can they get a true premise? They can’t. Every claim they make requires further proof.

On the other hand, Christ leads, teaches, and corrects every person who follows Him. This ongoing two-way communication is our relationship with Christ. Everyone experiences it. We’re learning to discern His voice from all others. We’re learning how to respond in submission. God provides true premises through divine revelation. He reveals reality through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. He says we can trust what He says through Scripture. He reveals He doesn’t conflict with Himself. He says no revelation, either within Scripture or outside Scripture, will ever conflict with Scripture. He reveals Himself to all who will yield themselves to Him. He alone reveals the Bible is His word without error. This revelation was the secret of George Washington Carver, Albert Einstein, and others. He’s able to give discernment between the true teacher and the false teacher, between the true prophet and the false prophet.

Also, we don’t ask anyone to take our word for this. Every person who seeks Him finds Him. Anyone can test this. Everyone who cares about truth will hear this message and seek Christ. Then, they’ll know.

Christ-followers need a balanced reference book. The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies looks at the specialized fallacies only Christians commit, but it also looks at the specialized fallacies only ungodly thinkers commit. By the way, Christians are also ungodly thinkers when they don’t listen to the Holy Spirit’s leading. And that happens a lot to every one of us.

How endless a task we would have on our hands if we were to begin naming all the different areas of deception! God’s provision and antidote for this danger is for you and me to walk in truth. ~ “Who Are You”, George Warnock

How do we walk in truth? Consider that truth is a Person, the Person of Jesus Christ. He is the truth. In Him are hidden all wisdom and knowledge. We must know Him. We must listen to His voice. He speaks through the Bible and every means of divine revelation written in the Bible. Fallacies like naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism have deceived many. Many have walked into the deception to the point they no longer hear the voice of the Absolute King of kings.

Even now, His coming (His parousia which means abiding presence) within you and I is appearing. If we aren’t experiencing His coming to His body, we won’t look forward to Him coming for His body. As we all look at the glory of the Lord, as if looking into a mirror, the Spirit of the Lord transfigures us into the same image from glory to glory. Walking in truth is a walk from glory to glory. The presuppositions and mindsets of the past will not take us to where God wants us to go. We must listen closely.

 

 

Fallacies and Logic Terms

Abductive Fallacy

(a.k.a. Abduction)

Basing conclusions on guesses

Examples:

Astronomers don’t know for sure how the universe made its first stars, but they do have a reasonably good guess. ~ Talking Back, Water, water (almost) everywhere, Astronomy

Evolution uses Pierce’s abductive schema.

Abduction is guessing, and guessing isn’t a rational way to reason.

Abuse-of-Statistics Fallacy

(a.k.a. Lying with Statistics, Statistical Fallacy, Misused Statistics, or Statistical Fallacy)

The use of statistics in ways that blur the distinction between reality and make-believe

Rather than using reason to evaluate the issue, persuaders abuse statistics to assert a falsehood. Here’s a partial list of fallacies that abuse statistics:

• Small Sample Size Bias
• Avoiding Specific Numbers
• Bad Statistical Data
• Base-Rate Fallacy
• Bayes’-Theorem Fallacy
• Biased Method
• Clustering Illusion
• Error in Sampling
• Fake Precision
• Ludic Fallacy
• Gamblers Fallacy
• Hasty Generalization
• False Precision
• Biased Statistics

One way we can abuse statistics is by implying statistics are something more than inductive reasoning. Statistical methods use induction rather than deduction. We’re foolish when we get dogmatic about induced conclusions or imply such inductive reasoning is concrete or definitive.

Abusive-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

(a.k.a. Character Assassination, Smear Campaign, or Throwing Stones)

An attack on the person rather than the issue

An argument that seeks to discredit a person or group of persons rather than deciding whether a statement is true based on its soundness

Example:

All Christians are stupid.

The person who commits abusive-ad-hominem fallacy defames, mocks, or dishonors those with opposing views rather than using sound reason to evaluate the issue. For instance, they may try to discredit another person through tactics like name-calling or character assassination rather than addressing the logic and the proof. Ad hominem means “to the person,” so ad hominem fallacies aren’t always abusive. Many simply direct the attention to the person rather than the issue.

Accident Fallacy

(a.k.a. A Dicto Simpliciter Ad Dictum Secundum Quid)

Applying a rule generally while ignoring exceptions to the rule

Examples:

Scientists have the rocks and fossils tested using radiometric dating methods, and all the dates concur.

This persuader ignores the exceptions and the way scientists cherry-pick this data.

The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Therefore, I could never serve in the military, and I believe the death sentence is wrong.

In this example, the persuader ignores the correct translation of the Bible, “Thou shalt not murder.” The death penalty for certain crimes and serving in the military are not murder.

The Bible says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Therefore, I must tell my boss that his wife is ugly.

Here’s the logical fallacy. The Bible doesn’t say we must say everything we’re thinking. If we see reality as God sees it, every person is His creation whom He loves. Lying is an abomination. Blurting out our flawed assessments of other people amounts to telling lies, even if we rationalize such faulty judgments as “just being honest.”

What is usually true isn’t always true. For example, if most people react a certain way in a situation, it doesn’t mean all people will react this way. A general rule only gives us a first place to look or a first guess to make, but it doesn’t mean this guess will be correct. Besides, we can think something is generally true when it isn’t generally true.

According-to-the-Rules Fallacy

A claim that something is true because it follows certain rules

Examples:

If logic follows proper form, then the conclusion is true.

This statement fails since the persuader must also prove the premise is true.

I’ve followed all the steps of problem-solving; therefore, my solution is guaranteed to work.

A persuader claims 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 a case the rules don’t specifically address. Another specific case would be the formally-correct fallacy in which a piece of logic has perfect logical form but has at least one unproven premise. In this case, a thinker follows all the rules of logical form but forgets the premise must be true.

Addiction Mistake

Any enslavement caused by searching for satisfaction in anything except Christ

We can only find satisfaction progressively as we come into the image and likeness of Christ. ^{(Psalm 17:15)} Trying to find satisfaction in other ways often leads to addiction. Unthankfulness contributes to addiction. Unthankfulness is a fallacy since God blesses every person, and if we don’t acknowledge this blessing or fail to be thankful, we fail to deal with reality.

Ad-Hoc-Rescue Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ad Hoc Hypothesis or Just-So Story)

A story made up to explain away experimentation and observation against a pet theory

An additional story invented to save the stories of a favored theory when new information conflicts with the favored theory

Example:

Using well-known radioisotope technology, scientists dated the Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina at 212 million years old. This happened to agree well with a nearby geologic formation that was also radiometrically dated. The radiometric date of the Santo Domingo formation also agreed with the dating based on fossil wood found entombed in the rock. This wood came from an extinct species of tree conventionally believed to have existed around 200 million years ago.

Well-preserved and abundant tracks were also found in the rock, similar in appearance to bird tracks. The scientists, who assert the earth is billions of years old, concluded the footprints must have been made by an unknown species of a small bird-like dinosaur because according to Darwinian theory birds weren’t supposed to be around 212 million years ago. The results were accepted and published by the science journal Nature in 2002. ~ Creation.com, radiometric-backflip

In this example, the scientist explains away a surprise observation using an ad-hoc-rescue fallacy. The scientist claims a small bird-like dinosaur must have made the bird tracks. This way the scientist can maintain the evolutionistic paradigm.

In an ad-hoc-rescue fallacy, some part of a worldview doesn’t match reality, so the worldview-owner makes up ad hoc stories to rescue the worldview by explaining away reality. We see it repeatedly as evolution runs into conflicts with various observations, but scientists always make up a hypothesis to rescue evolution. The evolutionist then calls this storytelling “scientific progress” and “proof.”

Ad-Hominem-Ridicule Fallacy

Ridicule used to either avoid addressing a question or an issue or to intimidate and belittle

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: My experience is God leads me, teaches me, and corrects me moment by moment in every situation. I confess that I don’t always listen as I should. I’m learning to discern His voice from all others and to obey Him.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You’re being ridiculous because you’re insane.

When a persuader uses ad hominem ridicule instead of reason, they’ll sometimes commit the appeal-to-ridicule fallacy because they think it makes their point more effectively. They ridicule the person rather than using sound reason to evaluate the idea. The appeal-to-ridicule fallacy occurs when a persuader uses ridicule or humor rather than rational thinking. Ad hominem ridicule is a smokescreen to hide an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. Christ-followers should avoid it. Sticking to the facts is embarrassing enough for ungodly thinkers. Watch for this fallacy from ungodly thinkers like atheists, globalists, neocons, leftists, evolutionists, and socialists.

“Ad hominem” means “to the person.” It’s not necessarily an attack. It’s always a diversion from the evidence and issue.

Ad-Hominem-Tu-Quoque Fallacy

When facing a shortcoming or flaw, rather than dealing with the flaw, accusing another of the same flaw while changing the topic to their person

“Ad hominem” means to the person. “Tu quoque” means “You too.”

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Every so-called evidence for the molecules-to-humanity story depends on arbitrary assumptions. By divine revelation, God declares that He created all the basic kinds of living organisms, plus the entire universe, in just six days.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Since you’re uneducated and unintelligent, you don’t realize you’re just assuming your so-called “divine revelation,” so we’re on equal footing.

In this discussion, Rocky mentions a problem with Sandy’s claim. Rather than dealing with the problem, Sandy accuses Rocky of having the same problem as Sandy has but extending this accusation to direct attention to the person of Rocky, which makes it ad hominem.

Persuaders commit ad-hominem-tu-quoque fallacies as smokescreens. They use them to hide major flaws in their arguments. When a rational thinker exposes a fallacious thinker’s flawed reasoning, rather than acknowledging or solving the problem, the fallacious thinker uses this fallacy.

Ad-Ignorantiam-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument-by-Question Fallacy)

A question that implies an argument from ignorance

Examples:

If you can’t answer my question, then I’m right, and you’re wrong.

If you can’t show it, then you don’t know it. ~ Aron Ra

Aron says you only can know what you prove to him to his satisfaction. That would mean you aren’t feeling pain when you’re feeling pain. You aren’t having anxiety when you’re having anxiety. You aren’t remembering a past event when you remember it. You aren’t hearing the voice of God when He speaks to you. Aron claims you can’t know any of these unless you can prove it to him to his satisfaction. That’s irrational. Truth is truth regardless of who receives or rejects it.

You can try this yourself, everybody. I mean, I don’t mean to be mean to trees, but get a sapling and put it underwater for a year. It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds. They just won’t make it. So how could these trees be that old if the earth is only 4,000 years old? ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye probably meant to ask how the trees could have survived the global Flood of Genesis, and many possible ways exist. He implying trees disprove the Genesis Flood happened. It looks like he got two different thoughts confused. One thought is trees couldn’t have survived the Flood. The other thought is the trees were older than the Genesis Flood that took place about 4,300 years ago around 2,300 BC.

Scientists based the calculations of the age of some trees on assumptions—made-up stuff, and Bill presented the results of those calculations as if scientists had calculated the ages rationally. Here’s the reality. We don’t have a way to know those trees are that old.

So Bill Nye argues that he doesn’t know how it happened, and he bets that Ken Ham can’t think of a way it could have happened. So, based on his lack of knowledge, he claims the Bible has an error. However, Ken’s, Bill Nye’s, or anyone else’s knowledge or lack of it doesn’t affect reality. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. The questions that Bill Nye is asking would fall into the class of fallacies known as ad ignorantiam. The persuader asks a question or a long series of questions. If the other person can’t answer them or doesn’t have enough time to answer them, the persuader claims victory. In the quote above, Bill implies Ken must answer his question, or, if he doesn’t answer to Bill’s satisfaction, a young earth, a global Flood, and Creation are all impossible. These fallacies can sound convincing. However, they’re irrational. Just because Bill Nye the “science guy” doesn’t know something doesn’t mean that thing is impossible.

It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds. ~ Bill Nye

Bill states what he hasn’t proved as if it were a fact. The Ark could have carried seeds as a main food source. The global Flood would create floating islands of debris, which would be huge mats of vegetation. These would have carried many seeds out of the water. Most importantly, Bill is assuming naturalism and basing his whole argument on this assumption. He bases his “proof” on naturalism but never mentions it. So he commits a form of hysteron proteron. He “proves” his case with the unproven assumption of naturalism as proof.

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark. ~ Creation.com, How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?

If we don’t answer a question, we don’t change reality by not answering. That’s why we can’t prove anything true or false based on a person’s inability to answer a question. In other words, no one’s lack of ability to answer a question has any impact on what really exists. And yet, countless TV shows and movies present this as proof positive for whatever the show’s producer is trying to sell. They create plots where the hero asks a question, and the person who is supposed to be wrong can’t answer. The show’s producer presents this story as proof by innuendo for whatever he or she is peddling. It doesn’t prove a thing. However, it does brainwash many of those who watch the show.

Here’s another ad ignorantiam question:

So you say you know God created the universe because you know Jesus Christ and He revealed it to you? Well then tell me exactly how the physics worked when God made everything out of nothing.

This question asks us to speculate in the same way ungodly thinkers speculate about how the physics would work if nothing made everything out of nothing. At the same time, this questioner doesn’t direct her question toward the premise or proof, since the proof is we know Jesus Christ and He reveals God created the universe. This revelation didn’t make us all-knowing.

On the other hand, it’s not a fallacy to ask, “What makes you think so?” If a person makes a claim but has no basis for the claim, the person can’t rationally support the claim. Consider a Christ-follower who says He knows God created the universe and everything in it from nothing. A skeptic asks the Christ-follower, “What makes you think so?” If the Christ-follower can’t answer this question rationally, the Christ-follower’s claim is a bare claim. Of course, a person who’s following Christ learned this fact from Christ, so such a person has a rational answer: “I know because Christ has revealed it to me.”

If you claim Christ revealed something to you, and you can answer how you know Christ revealed that to you, you’re not making a bare claim. Perhaps He revealed it to you by speaking through Scripture. However, your answer wouldn’t be proof for disbelievers, but it’s the proof Jesus Christ gave you, so it’s not a bare claim. Disbelievers would have to yield their wills to Christ. Then they would also know Christ and His power to reveal. And yet, even then, they wouldn’t automatically receive the complete revelation that Christ had given to you but would have to wait for Christ to reveal the truth to them. Christ doesn’t force Himself on us. Our worldviews and theologies make us resistant to new revelation, and we want to remain as we have always been. We want to maintain those worldviews and theologies, so God only reveals reality to us as we’re willing to yield ourselves and our wills to Him. As long as we’re willing, He’ll keep peeling back the layers of fleshly thinking as He leads us from glory to ever-increasing glory.

However, it’s a fallacy to say, “If you can’t answer all my questions about every part of your claim, that proves you’re wrong.” That would be the ad-ignorantiam-question fallacy. Even if a person doesn’t have a basis for his or her claim, that doesn’t prove the person wrong. It just proves the person has no rational proof of the claim and shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. You commit no fallacy if you ask a question to open a person’s mind to the truth. Persuaders often use the ad-ignorantiam-question fallacy with the assumption correction assumption.

Ad-Misericordiam Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Sympathy, or Appeal to Misery)

Using pity or sympathy as a reason for believing

Examples:

No one should say my sin is wrong because that hurts my feelings.

Everyone should pity me and give me money. It’s not my fault I don’t want to work.

Salespeople know this tactic as the sympathy close.

Ad-Personam Fallacy

Personal preferences, dislikes, or weaknesses used as a reason to believe

Examples:

A much better conclusion would be that everything started with a big bang billions of years ago.

This disbeliever thinks it’s a better conclusion because it’s the conclusion the disbeliever prefers.

That’s what I believe because that’s what I prefer to be true.

Truth is truth, and we can’t understand it or know it based on personal preferences. If someone prefers something to be true, this person can probably find someone preaching it somewhere. What does God say? That’s the only relevant question.

Adultery Mistake

(a.k.a. Sexual-Sin Fallacy, Fornication Fallacy, or Perversion Fallacy)

Sexual sin that perverts God’s pattern of sex between one man and one woman who have committed to a life-long loving relationship of marriage

While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds. Adultery gives the illusion of satisfaction, happiness, love, or fulfillment, but it can’t fulfill any of these, so it’s a fallacy. As it appears here, the term “adultery” applies to all sexual thought, word, or activity that doesn’t follow God’s pattern and design. Adultery takes what God hasn’t given. It perverts God’s good design for marriage. Adultery also stems from unthankfulness for what God has provided. It indicates a lack of trust in God.

The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ~ Galatians 5:14 Berean Study Bible

Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. The commandments “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and any other commandments, are summed up in this one decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. ~ Romans 13:8-9 Berean Study Bible

Every sexual sin commits a fallacy by failing to deal with reality. God provides what we need, but if we don’t believe Him, we may resort to taking what He hasn’t given. God is love, and Jesus Christ is the expression of His love, so whatever is counter to God’s commands isn’t love.

All sin distorts and degrades the human ability to know the difference between God’s voice and other sources. That’s the difference between good and evil. Sexual sin confuses the mind more thoroughly than many other sins since it destroys not only the soul but also the body. It makes hateful acts that use other people seem as if they’re loving acts. It tries to normalize disgusting behavior. On the other hand, yielding to the Holy Spirit results in increased discernment as the fleshly veil is removed and Christ is more fully formed within. The patterns that God reveals through Scripture lead to fulfillment and true love.

Affirming-the-Consequent Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term, Converse-Error Fallacy, or Fallacy of the Converse)

A fallacy of form in which the truth of a statement is assumed to assure a reversed order of the statement is also true

Example:

Five-year-old: If monsters lived under my bed, I would be afraid. I’m afraid. So, monsters live under my bed.

Other things can make a child afraid—like imagination.

Teacher: If molecules turned into people over millions of years, then we would expect we could arrange the various living organisms according to similarity. We can arrange the various living organisms according to similarity. Therefore, molecules turned into people.

We can arrange any group of objects according to similarity, but that doesn’t prove they evolved from one another. This problem of affirming the consequent is a basic flaw in arguments that claim prediction as a way of proving stories about the distant past.

When a thinker affirms the consequent, the thinker doesn’t distribute the middle term of a categorical syllogism. That’s a fallacy of form, a formal fallacy.

Affirming-the-Disjunct Fallacy

(a.k.a. 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, or Fallacy of Exclusion)

Thinking one claim being true makes another claim false when they’re not proved mutually exclusive

Believing that one of two claims is false if the other is true when they aren’t mutually exclusive

Examples:

Christians have to decide whether they’re going to keep themselves pure from sin or love their neighbors. They must love their neighbors. Therefore, they don’t need to keep themselves pure.

We can’t separate loving our neighbors from keeping ourselves pure from sin since sin is the absence of love. The two terms aren’t mutually exclusive. They depend on each other, so that’s an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the disjunct.

Did God give us a mind to use, or are we going to look to God for revelation? We must use the mind God gave us. Therefore, we don’t look to God for revelation.

Using our minds and receiving God’s revelation aren’t mutually exclusive, so that’s another example of the logical fallacy of affirming the disjunct. God created our minds to be joined to Him, and our minds don’t work properly without the flow of the Holy Spirit. Our minds can’t know anything about anything without divine revelation. The walk in the Spirit is one of allowing the Holy Spirit to form Christ in our minds fully and to die to the deceitful and desperately wicked fleshly carnal mind completely.

On the other hand, we know of cases where one of two choices must be true, but both can’t be true. These cases wouldn’t commit this fallacy. For example, if our two choices are “God created everything,” and “God didn’t create everything,” those two statements are mutually exclusive. So, if we can prove God created everything, we can eliminate every theory that claims God didn’t create everything. And God proves He created everything by divine revelation. Therefore, all theories that claim God didn’t create everything are false. This case doesn’t commit the fallacy of affirming the disjunct.

Against-Self-Confidence Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Fidentia)

An effort to undermine self-confidence rather than dealing with proof and logic

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: I know God exists in the same way I know my dad exists. I talk to Him, and He talks to me. Christ often leads me in miraculous ways. It’s an ongoing, moment-by-moment experience with Jesus Christ.

Sandy Sandbuilder: How do you know it’s God speaking to you. Perhaps it’s just your own mind’s neurons firing. Everything is random, and God doesn’t exist. And I would say you’re crazy and you ought to be hauled away for saying that. You are dangerous to yourself and others.

Rocky: Christ is well able to reveal and to give discernment. When He speaks and I listen to Him, His faith comes. He’s the author of that faith, and He sees it through to completion. I invite you to know Him, and then you’ll know.

Sandy: I already tried that once, and it doesn’t work.

Sandy Sandbuilder doesn’t want to check to see whether Christ is real. Persuaders who use arguments against self-confidence avoid checking whether a statement is true. They don’t judge based on the statement’s soundness. These persuaders try to shake confidence instead of using sound reasoning. In the example given, Sandy could have asked for a way to test Rocky’s claim of the existence of Jesus Christ and Christ’s willingness to lead His own people. Then Rocky could have explained how Sandy could find Christ and confirm His goodness and His availability.

We don’t commit an argumentum-ad-fidentia fallacy if we ask a persuader to tell us how they know their claim is true. When they can’t answer, it may take away some of their self-confidence, but rightly so.

Related:

creating misgivings

Agnostic-Definist Fallacy

Creating a persuasive definition of the word “agnostic” to sell agnosticism

Example:

You don’t understand the meaning of the word “agnostic.” “Agnostic” means open-minded. You just need to prove to me that Jesus Christ exists.

That’s a form of definist fallacy. A disbeliever persuasively defines the word “agnostic” to appear open-minded. We included this specific form of definist fallacy because dogmatic secularists have started using it. When a disbeliever uses this deceptive definition, it doesn’t stop the hidden dogmatic assumption of “no God.” It just denies the disbeliever is assuming “no God.” The disbeliever just converts the assumption into a hidden presupposition underlying all the disbeliever’s reasoning.

Disbelievers use this fallacy to try to sway Christ-followers toward their ungodly religion. Ungodly thinkers, like atheists, agnostics, or disbelievers, use the definist fallacy to set up failure-to-state-position fallacies. In the failure-to-state-position fallacy, ungodly thinkers try to nitpick. They try to poke holes in Christ-followers’ beliefs. At the same time, they insist no one can question ungodliness. They claim ungodliness is a non-position. They take this attitude: “I’ll ask you questions forever, but you don’t dare ask for any proof of my beliefs—since I’m claiming I don’t have any.” However, ungodly thinkers work far too hard to claim to have no position or belief. It takes extreme effort and irrationality to deny Christ. And since ungodly thinkers know they can’t defend their claim of “God doesn’t exist,” they use this fallacy to pretend there’s no position to defend.

God tells us every person knows He exists. They know about what He calls right and wrong and His justice. As a result, agnosticism is an assertion contrary to fact.

Agnosticism Mistake

A philosophy, religion, or worldview claiming no one can know God

Agnosticism is irrational, yet agnostics sell it as the only rational view. However, it’s not rational because the philosophy depends on the presupposition, or unfounded claim, that no one can know God. Agnostics often seek to prove no one can know God, but agnostics base their “proof” on made-up stuff.

How could they prove no one anywhere has ever known God? What method would anyone use to know that? Agnostics claim no one has ever known God, yet Christ leads, teaches, corrects, and purifies everyone who knows Him. Every person who follows Christ has this experience moment by moment, but the agnostic is claiming to know these Christ-followers aren’t experiencing what they’re experiencing. The agnostic asserts a universal negative. That universal negative implies amazing familiarity with the spiritual life of every person. In other words, the agnostic claims omniscience.

An agnostic may adjust the claim to this: “I know I can’t know God.” However, that doesn’t help the agnostic since this assertion is also contrary to fact. God says, “For the invisible things of God from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse.” Agnostics claim to have excuses for that, but God says they have suppressed the truth of His existence in their unrighteousness [deceitful trickery]. God goes on to say “their senseless minds are darkened.” These are people who aren’t in a position to claim anything since they can’t have a true premise to prove their claims about anything. In particular, having darkened their own minds by suppressing the truth of God in their deceitful trickery, they have corrupted their minds regarding this issue and aren’t qualified to make claims.

Some clever agnostics pretend to be open and neutral. These agnostics try to prove several claims. They claim to be open to God. They claim to have tried to know God but they could not find Him. They insist it was God’s fault they couldn’t find Him. They insist they can be fully rational without a true premise for any claim. They say made-up stuff works as a basis for thinking. They question knowing anything by divine revelation.

We can see why Jesus said, “I tell all of you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom from heaven.” They pretend they have childlike open-mindedness, but open-minded people don’t say making up stuff makes sense. Open-minded people don’t claim millions of other people aren’t experiencing what those people are experiencing.

Sometimes, the term “agnostic” is used to mean uncommitted, having no opinion, or unaware. Uncommitted people have no opinion, or are unaware and will be open to hearing about Christ and learning how they can know Him. Since every person who seeks Christ finds Christ, they will find Him. Because the Father knows how to give the Holy Spirit to those who seek Christ, they will find Christ and they will receive the Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

Alcohol-Addiction Mistake

Enslavement caused by searching for satisfaction in alcohol

We can only find satisfaction progressively as we come into the image and likeness of Christ. ^{(Psalm 17:15)} Those who commit this fallacy think they can find satisfaction or happiness in alcohol. They’re deluded. The opposite is the case since trying to find satisfaction or happiness in alcohol will ultimately limit or eliminate satisfaction and happiness.

Allness Fallacy

Making a statement that implies totality, finality, or unequivocal certainty beyond what anyone can know

An absolute statement that goes beyond what God has revealed

Examples:

Evolution is a fact.

Even though evolutionists can’t prove it, they claim it dogmatically. That’s the allness fallacy.

Rocky Rockbuilder: You said God doesn’t reveal anything to anyone. That conflicts with my experience and the experience of people I know who follow Christ. What makes you so sure of yourself?

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m sure of the fact because there is no God.

Sandy Sandbuilder is certain but can’t give a sound reason for this certainty. A sound reason needs a true premise. Persuaders can’t rationally base their reasoning on any assumptions, stories, or other forms of made-up stuff no matter how emphatically they state the made-up stuff.

All-Or-Nothing Fallacy

A continuum stated as a black and white issue

Examples:

I’m a good person.

I’m a mature Christian.

He’s wealthy.

She’s poor.

Most people don’t consider themselves wealthy no matter how much money they have, but some people use the word, “wealthy,” as a black and white issue. Where is the point at which someone becomes wealthy?

Fallacy Abuse:

Rocky Rockbuilder: A naturalist can never be fully rational.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Ha! Ha! That is the fallacy of all-or-nothing thinking.

Rocky: It’s not. If a naturalist uses the naturalistic presupposition as any part of the foundation of thought, then the naturalist falls prey to Agrippa’s trilemma. A chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. This chain must begin with truth. However, the naturalist has only infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking.

The flip side of this fallacy is the false-dichotomy fallacy. In this fallacy, a thinker considers a black and white issue to be a continuum.

Alternative-Advance Fallacy

(a.k.a. Lose-Lose Situation)

Offering a choice, but the two choices are the same thing

Example:

Teacher: Three theories of evolution exist. We’ve studied Neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, and theistic evolution. Which one do you believe?

Student: I don’t believe any of these. God revealed to me that He’s the one who created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days.

The teacher offered more than one choice, but the choices the teacher offered were the same choice. Every choice was a choice of evolutionism.

Alternative-Syllogism Fallacy

Assuming that one claim being true makes the other claim false

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Either there’s an all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God or there’s suffering. There’s suffering. Therefore, there’s no all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God.

Rocky Rockbuilder: We call that the alternative-syllogism fallacy. Your logic fails because both choices are true, but you implied only one could be true.

In the alternative-syllogism fallacy, a thinker concluded one claim is false just because the other claim is true. However, the thinker can’t prove the two choices are mutually exclusive. If we don’t have enough information to declare the two choices are mutually exclusive, they may not be mutually exclusive, and both choices might be true. Sometimes, as in the case above, we know both choices are true.

Amazing-Familiarity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Extraordinary Knowledge)

Making a claim that’s impossible to know except by divine revelation when the claim isn’t based on divine revelation

Examples:

There is no God.

Jesus Christ doesn’t reveal anything.

The Church no longer has gifts of the Spirit as it had when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

When persuaders claim universal positives or universal negatives, they commit amazing-familiarity fallacies unless God reveals the claim. Only God can declare a universal negative since He knows everything and can’t lie. For example, God says there’s not a single just person on the earth who does good without sin, which is a universal negative. God says all who seek Christ will find Christ, which is a universal positive. God also says no people exist to whom God hasn’t revealed everything humans can know about the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He’s revealed Himself and the Godhead to them through the things He created.

Claims like, “God doesn’t reveal Himself to you,” are amazing-familiarity fallacies. God reveals Himself through Scripture, and we can’t read Scripture without interacting with the Holy Spirit. Even ungodly people who reject Christ interact with Christ when they hear Scripture quoted. As followers of Christ, we can speak by the Holy Spirit or speak a vision out of our own minds. God can reveal information through a word of knowledge or discernment of spirits. God speaks to us in many ways and reveals reality to us. If we make claims beyond what God reveals, we commit amazing-familiarity fallacies.

Ambiguity-Effect Fallacy

The human tendency to choose more fully defined ideas

Manipulation of others using the human tendency to choose more fully defined ideas

Persuaders who commit ambiguity-effect fallacies present several choices to us but try to direct our choice through a mind trick. They get us to pick certain choices by giving a more detailed description of those choices and giving ambiguous descriptions of other choices. The more fully defined choice seems more real. The persuader controls our minds by leaving out information about all choices except the favored choice. We see this tactic used to propagandize in TV, entertainment, education, magazines, news, novels, and every means of communication.

Examples:

Well, let’s take it back around to the question at hand: does Ken Ham’s Creation model hold up? Is it viable? We’re here in Kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone. I stopped at the side of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. Now, in these many, many layers in this vicinity of Kentucky, there are coral animals, fossils, zooxanthellae, and when you look at it closely, you can see that they lived their entire lives, they lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that if the water conditions were correct, and so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years? There isn’t enough time for this limestone we’re standing on to have come into existence. ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye used the logical fallacy of misleading vividness, adding many pieces of unnecessary information for the choice he was selling, which was “billions of years.” However, Bill hardly mentioned and poorly defined the alternative, which is the Genesis Flood laying down the layers of sediment and coral animals. Bill’s ambiguity-effect fallacy worked to make gullible people think there was substance to what Bill claimed. When Bill gave many details, Bill’s claim seemed true. The details triggered the ambiguity-effect fallacy. Bill gave a vague definition of the other choice to make us think there was more evidence to support his case. The tactic convinces some people even with a false conclusion and premise.

Ambiguity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Vagueness, Doublespeak, or Fuzzy Talking)

Any form of unclear communication

A persuader can use unclear communication to give the illusion of proof or the illusion of reason. The persuader can often influence a greater percentage of thinkers with unclear communication than with clear communication. Thinkers fit statements into their worldviews and fill in the blanks with what makes sense to them. For instance, a politician may promise “hope and change,” and each person listening will fill in the blanks with personal hopes and desired changes. However, if the persuader communicated clearly and explained the changes, more people would reject the changes. ^{(P. T. Barnum effect)}

Ambiguous-Assertion Fallacy

A claim vague enough to allow more than one interpretation

Examples:

[There isn’t a single place] . . . where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there is a big flood on the earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. ~ Bill Nye

Bill made a vague statement. He said there’s “not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one kind of animal cross over into the fossils of another.” We have to clarify his statement before we can answer it. Bill is using innuendo rather than making a clear statement. Persuaders often use innuendo to hedge against challenges since they don’t have a reason to believe what they believe. What does Bill mean by “fossils of one kind of animal cross over into the fossils of another?” What makes him think they didn’t swim or run up to a higher level since the most mobile are at the higher layers? Scientists often find fossils in unexpected places.

Sometimes persuaders make statements so vague the audience must guess what the persuader meant. That can be a ploy for using the P. T. Barnum effect.

Ambiguous-Collective Fallacy

Use of a collective term (“we,” “everyone,” “the people”) without defining exactly who or what the term includes

Examples:

This is what geologists on the outside do, study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas, and we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone. ~ Bill Nye

Who specifically can see it? Bill can’t be referring to the geologists since he’s not a geologist. Bill is implying he and the entire audience see it, but they don’t. Who sees it? That’s an especially important question since stone can form very quickly.

Experts agree . . .

Scientists have confirmed . . .

Misunderstanding can result from not being specific. Sometimes, a persuader uses the ambiguous collective for deceit, to give a false impression, or to bypass the part of the mind that does critical thinking.

Related:

suppression of the agent

Ambiguous-Middle Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ambiguous Middle Term)

A piece of reasoning where the middle term has more than one possible meaning

Example:

We can easily observe evolution taking place. [The middle term, “evolution,” means “adaptations and mutations.”] Evolution consists of lifeless molecules coming to life and turning into humans over millions of years. [The middle term, “evolution,” has just changed meanings. It now means a story about “microbes turning into people over millions of years.”] Therefore, we have observed evolution happening. [The term, “evolution,” is now ambiguous.]

Ancestral-Sin Fallacy

Claiming that one person or group of persons owes restitution for the sins of previous generations

Examples:

Reparation for slavery makes sense. Those whose ancestors weren’t slaves should compensate those whose ancestors were slaves.

People belonging to groups that experienced discrimination in past generations should have special privileges now. Just having equal rights isn’t enough.

Here’s what God says about it:

In those days people will no longer say, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, but the children’s teeth have been set on edge.’ Instead, each person will die for his own iniquity. Everyone who eats sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge. ~ Jeremiah 31:29-30 International Standard Version

Anchoring Fallacy

Associating a certain term, concept, or behavior with something unrelated to create a mental anchor or trigger

A persuader using the anchoring fallacy continually uses certain terms with more than one meaning to plant seeds of association where no real association exists. The persuader tries to mold inner worldviews of others without them ever knowing the persuader is using a hypnotic technique.

Examples:

• News media and educational programs often use anchoring to create a false impression in the minds of millions of people.
• Persuaders can use any drama or story to influence the masses. They portray pastors as evil or stupid. They associate fathers or husbands with incompetence. They associate Christians with terrorists. They associate sexual sin with fulfillment. They associate alcohol with success and honor. They associate evolution or billions of years with helpful science. By repeating these lies continually, they set them into the worldviews of their audiences.

Sometimes, we persuade ourselves this way. For instance, if we repeatedly eat snacks when watching TV, turning on the TV will trigger an urge to eat snacks. Anchoring is a Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique.

• Essential-skills.com, Essential Skills of Persuasion and Personal Performance
• com, Online Persuasion: Anchoring
• org, Methods of neuro-linguistic programming

Anecdotal-Evidence-Presented-as-Proof Fallacy

(a.k.a. Personal Testimony Presented as Proof)

An isolated story used as the only proof

A persuader may present a personal story as if it were the scientific method. The persuader implies the personal testimony or anecdote is conclusive proof. We give more weight than is warranted to the single experience the persuader presents.

Personal experience (experimentation) is valid evidence, especially when backed up by the personal experiences of many people. That’s how empirical science works since the word, “empirical,” means “by experience.” However, if the persuader adds any assumptions or human interpretations to experimentation, the persuader commits an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. Our experiences can deceive us. However, we can be more certain of what we’ve seen, experienced, and handled, whether spiritual or material, than theories and stories.

Anonymous-Authority Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Anonymous Authority)

Mentioning an authority as validating a claim without specifically identifying the authority

A persuader mentions an authority vaguely so we can’t tell what the authority is as in the following examples:

People say . . .

Scientists confirm . . .

Studies show . . .

That isn’t to say specifically naming the authority is a way to avoid fallacy since any appeal to authority as a final word is fallacious unless the authority can’t be wrong and can’t lie. Of course, the only authority Who can’t lie or be wrong is God.

Related:

suppression of the agent and ambiguous collective

Antecedent-Assumed Fallacy

Reasoning that depends on assuming the truth of part of the reasoning

Example:

God is excluded from science by definition since science is defined as only what can be observed in the natural world. Therefore, any observation must be interpreted from a naturalistic standpoint without God. Therefore, no observation can prove the existence of God, and every observation must be interpreted as not related to God in any way. Therefore, God could not possibly reveal Himself through what we can observe in the natural world. Therefore, since scientists can only assign naturalistic causes to observed phenomenon, science proves God causes nothing in the natural realm.

The antecedent is no one can know God by what they observe. The conclusion is no one can know God by what they observe. That’s a form of circular reasoning.

Antecedent Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Antecedent or Fallacy of Time)

Assuming one of two things: It never happened before, so it never will happen. It happened, so it will happen again.

Claiming the future is identical to the past

A persuader who uses the antecedent fallacy makes statements about the past or the future. They’re trying to guess the past or foretell the future.

Examples:

We observe gradual deposits of sediment in the present. We don’t observe a global flood in the present. Therefore, no single global flood deposited vast amounts of sediments in the past.

We get away with sin in the present, and God doesn’t destroy us. Therefore, God won’t judge our sin in the future.

Anti-Concreteness-Mentality Fallacy

(a.k.a. Attributing Abstractness to the Concrete, Mistaking an Entity for a Theory, or Mistaking Reality for an Assumption)

Treating something real as something unreal

Thinking some part of reality is a concept

Thinkers deceived by the anti-concreteness-mentality fallacy treat facts as concepts. They treat entities as assumptions, abstractions, or theories.

Examples:

Claiming that faith is conceptual rather than reality

Faith is the substance (reality as opposed to substance) of things hoped for and the evidence (absolutely certain proof) of things not seen. Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by God’s utterance. Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Treating Christ as if He were a concept

Jesus Christ is real, and anyone can know Him. He’s the only Source of all wisdom and knowledge.

Apophasis Fallacy

Pretending to deny while actually affirming

Persuaders who use apophasis mention by not mentioning. They appear to disagree with a point while actually emphasizing it.

Examples:

Some people say Charlie is an idiot, but I refuse to talk about it.

I would say my opponent is lying, but that wouldn’t be kind, so I won’t say it.

Persuaders will sometimes use apophasis as a hedge when making unsupported statements. That way, if they get caught, they can say, “I never said that.” Persuaders may use apophasis to say something true but not polite.

Appeal-to-Accomplishment Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Accomplishment, Escape to Accomplishment, or Argument from Accomplishment)

Pointing to accomplishment as a reason to believe rather than using reason based on truth

Believing, implying, or saying accomplishment equals authority

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I have a doctorate in theology; therefore, I’m qualified to say the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis are simply poetic.

Rocky Rockbuilder: I have a doctorate in theology too, which proves nothing. However, if you examine the structure or the Hebrew in Genesis 1 and 2, it’s not typical of other Hebrew poetry, but it follows the style of Hebrew historical narrative.

Sandy Sandbuilder tried to use his doctorate as a premise to support his conclusion, which is the fallacy of appeal to accomplishment. Rocky also mentioned his doctorate, but he didn’t use it as a premise. If Sandy asked Rocky to show proof, Rocky ought to be able to cite examples and compare them to Genesis 1 and 2. However, any such proof isn’t conclusive unless divine revelation proves it.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m a student in astronomy, and I’ll bet I know more about the universe than you do. I can tell you the earth is billions of years old. You aren’t as familiar with astronomy as I am, and you haven’t even figured out that light goes one light year per year. That means light would take billions of years to get to earth from stars billions of light years away.

Rocky Rockbuilder: You’ve stated your belief in naturalism. Naturalism makes you blind to most of the universe because this arbitrary assumption blinds you to the entire spiritual realm. You aren’t even willing to examine the spiritual realm. I know the big-bang billions-of-years model has many unsolved problems. You probably know about them too. It depends on stories about mysterious dark energy and dark matter. We can’t observe or test either of these mysterious stories using science. They’re fudge-factors to hide missed predictions. If you read Humphrey’s work, you’ll see the stretching of the heavens and time dilation can explain distant starlight. Also, several other young-earth cosmologies work better than the big bang story without dark matter or dark energy.

Sandy Sandbuilder tried to use his experience as a student of astronomy as an irrelevant appeal to accomplishment. Rocky stuck to the facts.

Persuaders who commit the appeal-to-accomplishment fallacy use someone’s level of accomplishment to imply authority. The person did something, so we’re supposed to believe this person without proof. The persuader uses this false authority as a premise rather than presenting a true premise that proves the conclusion.

Appeal-to-Age Fallacy

(a.k.a. The Wisdom of the Ancients, Appeal to Youth, Proof by Age, Escape to Age, or Argument by Age)

Pointing to age (either young or old) as a reason to believe a person’s opinion

Believing, implying, or saying age equals authority

Persuaders who commit the appeal-to-age fallacy use someone’s age, young or old, as a premise in support of a certain conclusion rather than presenting a premise that proves the conclusion rationally.

Examples:

I’m old. Therefore, I’m right

I’m young. Therefore, I’m right.

You’re too old to understand this. You should just take my word for it.

You’re too young to understand. You should just take my word for it.

Our last example points out a problem caused by many parents who don’t have answers to the questions of their children. Children often have questions about God, Creation, or the lies of the culture. If the parent doesn’t know the answers, the parent should get the answers. Children with unanswered questions are susceptible to deception from many sources. What would be wrong with parents and children working together to research the child’s question and find the truth?

Appeal-to-Anger Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Spite, Argumentum Ad Odium, Appeal to Hatred, Appeal to Loathing, Appeal to Outrage, Proof by Anger, Escape to Anger, or Argument by Anger)

Using anger as a reason to believe rather than using reason

In an appeal-to-anger fallacy, anger is the reason to believe rather than sound reasoning with a true premise that proves the conclusion.

Examples:

I’m angry; therefore, molecules came to life one day, and I’m justified to be angry with anyone who denies this.

Riots prove the rioters are right and they also prove those they riot against are wrong.

Of course, people using this fallacy would hide their reasoning more carefully than this, but anger can be an effective method for control.

A more insidious application of appeal to anger exists. We see it all around us. Hitler’s brown shirts used it. They went out into the streets and intimidated Hitler’s political enemies. Anyone who opposed Hitler was shouted down and threatened with violence or death. Unfortunately, some political forces are using this same tactic.

Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy

(a.k.a. Faulty Appeal to Authority, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, Argument from Authority, Proof by Authority, or Escape to Authority)

Using authority as a reason to believe instead of using reason

Examples:

Take my word for it. I’m the teacher.

Take my word for it. I’m the pastor.

We need to believe the majority of scientists.

Believe the American Psychiatric Association on this issue.

Persuaders who commit the appeal-to-authority fallacy make a truth claim based on a person, movie, publication, book or some other fallible source. The persuader claims a certain person or other source is the authority. Then the persuader uses this authority as the reason to believe the claim instead of using a true premise that proves the claim. Appeal to authority is a fallacy unless the source has absolute knowledge, can’t lie, and can’t be wrong. A teacher, pastor, or parent ought to have a sound reason for every belief. A sound reason needs a true premise. And no ungodly thinker can know any premise is true. Since ungodly thinkers can’t know any premise is true, they can’t know any conclusion is true. However, if they would acknowledge Jesus Christ, He would show them the truth.

Although humans claim authority on various subjects, none of them can provide absolute authority for three reasons. None of them know everything about their own subjects of expertise. They could all lie or misrepresent. They could all be wrong. The only absolute Authority is God Himself since He knows everything and can’t lie or make a mistake. We can only know anything with certainty by divine revelation, and revelation is certain. Without it, the most we can have is opinion.

Appeal-to-Bribery Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Bribery, Escape to Bribery, or Argument by Bribery)

Using an incentive as a reason to believe rather than using sound reason

In an appeal-to-bribery fallacy, an incentive, possibly financial, is a major part of the reason for believing something. This fallacy is a form of appeal to self-interest. It’s amazing how often self-interest leads to bad behavior that’s justified and defended by rationalizations.

Examples:

• Bill is a salesperson. He must believe in what he sells, so he convinces himself of his product’s value. But Bill’s product isn’t a good value for customers. Bill’s company bribes Bill with the commission check he’ll get by believing and by communicating his belief to customers.
• Scientists who want to make big money must believe in the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story.
• Politicians who use identity politics select a subset of the population by some identifying characteristic. Those politicians give special treatment to this subset as a form of bribery. Those who get the special treatment vote for the politicians who give them special treatment.

Appeal-to-Celebrity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Celebrity, Escape to Celebrity, or Argument by Celebrity)

Using the opinion of a celebrity as a reason to believe instead of using sound reason

Examples:

• The use of celebrities for political campaigns.
• The use of celebrities to support Christianity, atheism, or sexual misconduct.

A persuader who commits the appeal-to-celebrity fallacy uses the celebrity status of a person as a premise to prove a conclusion. It’s a form of false appeal to authority.

Listen to us. We’re celebrities, and we know everything about everything.

Appeal-to-Charm Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Personality, Proof by Charm, Escape to Charm, or Argument by Charm)

Reasoning based on personal charm, personality, or presentation

Appeal-to-Coincidence Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Luck, Appeal to Bad Luck, Proof by Luck, Escape to Luck, or Argument by Luck)

Claiming that coincidence or chance is the cause

Failure to consider the real cause

The Law of Cause and Effect is a basic law of logic. Every cause has an effect. And every effect has a cause. Only God is eternal. He alone was neither caused nor created. In conflict with the Law of Cause and Effect, the appeal-to-coincidence fallacy claims we should credit a certain effect or result to chance. Here are some realities that ungodly thinkers credit to chance:

• the laws of nature
• logic
• the cosmos
• information and knowledge
• morality and righteousness
• life
• the laws of mathematics
• all the various forms of living organisms

God reveals He is the cause for all these, but the ungodly position commits the appeal-to-coincidence fallacy and violates the Law of Cause and Effect. Interestingly, ungodly thinkers often claim, based on made-up stuff, that God can’t be the cause of anything. However, they can’t give a sound reason for their claim.

Appeal-to-Common-Folk Fallacy

(a.k.a. Plain Folks, Appeal to the Common Man, Argumentum Ad Populum, Proof by Things in Common, or Argument by Things in Common)

Claiming that having characteristics in common is a reason for believing

Believing, implying, or claiming “fitting in” equals authority

Examples:

While secularists sleep, well-funded creationists are on the march in Europe. ~ Peter C Kjærgaard

Peter tried to appeal to other evolutionists to rally their support against anyone who believes what God says about the origin of the universe. Those well-funded creationists fight against the poor “REAL scientists” who only have billions of dollars in government grants. They only have almost total control of every conceivable form of communication. They have public schools, all forms of media, and organizations like the ACLU.

Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.

This comment from an atheist blog is typical of the logical fallacy of appeal to common folk. The school board switched toward the liberal side, the anti-Creation side. This persuader implies this proves the precepts of evolutionism. Many people think popularity equals truth. Since they have turned away from Jesus Christ Who is the only Source of all Light, they have no way to tell the difference between good and evil, truth and error, or reality and make-believe. So they resort to looking around and believing whatever they perceive the majority to believe. Popularity doesn’t prove the reality of anything. Ungodly people fake popularity since they know many people are naïve enough to follow whichever direction they think most of the popular people are heading.

A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as ‘evolutionists’ and 28% as ‘creationists,’ with 31% indicating that they ‘simply don’t know what to believe” ~ press release issued by Ipsos

The article didn’t claim the polling information as an argument for the validity of the evolution story. However, why did they think this was important to post? Popular opinion is important to their argument. They also use a question-begging epithet by comparing “creationism” to “evolution.” They should put the “ism” on both or neither.

Appeal-to-Common-Practice Fallacy

(a.k.a. Everybody’s Doing It, Proof by Common Practice, Escape to Common Practice, or Argument from Common Practice)

Using common practice as a reason to believe

Examples:

Others are doing (something), so that’s the reason to do it.

Many people are doing it so it’s acceptable.

Whatever most people believe is true.

The appeal-to-common-practice fallacy appeals to the majority. A persuader might use a true majority as proof. The persuader may use a majority of a small subgroup as proof. The persuader may use a mere perception of a majority as proof when no such majority exists. Peer pressure and the actions of people around us influence us and can affect our thoughts, words, and actions.

Related:

cool-idolatry fallacy and bandwagon fallacy

Appeal-to-Complexity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Complexity, Escape to Complexity, or Argument by Complexity)

Claiming that lack of understanding of the evidence is proof of a conclusion rather than using reason based on truth

Believing, implying, or saying if something is complex it’s sane to make random assertions about it

Examples:

Rocky Rockbuilder: The molecules-to-humanity story is so unlikely that it’s statistically impossible based on what scientists have learned about information theory.

Sandy Sandbuilder: The term “information” is still so complex and poorly defined you can’t use it as an argument.

Sandy Sandbuilder’s lack of understanding isn’t a sound argument against information theory. We can’t use lack of understanding as proof either for or against anything. Persuaders say lack of understanding is “proof.” Sometimes they say one conclusion is as good as another since we don’t understand. They then take the conclusion they prefer and call it “true.”

Persuaders may try to confuse us with complex subjects like information theory or the second law of thermodynamics. This tactic is sometimes called “getting lost in the weeds.” The uninformed don’t know who to believe. An honest person brings clarity to complex subjects. An ungodly person tries to confuse and deceive.

Appeal-to-Confidence Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Self-Confidence, Escape to Self-Confidence, or Argument by Self-Confidence)

Using self-confidence as a reason to believe rather than using sound reason

Believing, implying, or saying confidence equals authority

In an appeal-to-confidence fallacy, a persuader uses his or her personal inner belief is the reason for believing.

Example:

I’m totally convinced of the big bang. I know that I know that I know the big bang happened.

This persuader has an ungodly form of faith. However, God speaks about a different form of faith through the Bible. God’s faith comes when God speaks into our innermost minds. When God speaks, that’s the only real authority. While God’s faith gives us confidence and certainty, it’s not an appeal-to-confidence fallacy because its foundation is God Himself. Appeal-to-confidence fallacies have their foundations in confidence itself. “I have confidence in confidence alone.” Any such confidence never has a rational foundation supporting it.

Appeal-to-Control-of-News-Media Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Media Control, Escape to Media Control, Pravda, or Argument by Media Control)

Using news articles in a tightly controlled news media to defend the sacred cows of the news media

Example:

Of course, evolution is a fact. Have you noticed the news media endorses the Theory of Evolution?

Examples in Articles:

• com, Bias in the Media
• com, Time and Newsweek Blatantly Attack Christian Doctrine

Appeal-to-control-of-news-media fallacies use news media broadcasts as proof rather than using sound reason. If we believe, imply, or claim the majority opinion of the news media equals authority, we appeal to control of the news media. The news media is biased in many ways, and news outlets filter the information that consumers receive. By filtering information in this way, the news outlets create a false impression. Consumers commit the fallacy if they allow the filtered news to deceive them. The persuader or consumer who commits this fallacy ignores how the news media works. Human beings create the news media, and these human beings have their own political, social, and religious (often ungodly) agendas and biases.

http://creation.com/media-search?q=science

Appeal-to-Contempt Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Contempt, Escape to Contempt, or Argument by Contempt)

Using contempt as proof instead of true premises

Believing, implying, or claiming contempt equals authority

The persuader who appeals to contempt substitutes contempt for rational thought. Contempt may include any of the following:

• scorn
• disdain
• disrespect
• hatred
• loathing
• foul language

Appeal-to-Control-of-Scientific-Funding Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Funding Control, Escape to Funding Control, or Argument by Funding Control)

Lack of government funding used as a reason to reject an idea

Government funding used as a reason to accept an idea

Believing, implying, or saying government funding proves the validity of some idea

Believing, implying, or saying lack of government funding proves an idea lacks validity

Example:

CNN Interviewer: Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree; are they making it up?

John Coleman, Founder of Weather Channel: Well that’s a manipulated figure and let me explain it to you. The government puts out about two and a half billion dollars directly for climate research every year. It only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democratic Party position, so they don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is. It’s really simple. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. That doesn’t make it true. It only makes it bought and paid for.

Ungodly thinkers use the lack of government scientific funding as evidence against any who threaten the sacred cows of those who control the funding. Therefore, arguing for those same sacred cows based on funding or lack of funding is a form of circular reasoning. Those who control the funding will fund only those projects with which they agree. So funding only proves those who decide who gets the money direct money to support their biases. This bias proves nothing about either the projects with which they agree or disagree.

Appeal-to-Control-of-Scientific-Journals Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Journal Control, Escape to Journal Control, or Argument by Journal Control)

Using the lack of papers being published in scientific journals that censor certain viewpoints as proof against the viewpoints that those journals censor

Using published papers in certain journals that engage in viewpoint discrimination as proof for the viewpoint favored by the journals

Believing the people controlling scientific journals have all knowledge and are objective, fair-minded, and without agendas

Examples:

If Creation is scientific, then show me a peer-reviewed article that supports it in the scientific journals, and I don’t mean those journals that allow articles supporting Creation.

The persuader who appeals to control of scientific journals usually assumes only certain scientific journals are the true scientific journals. Persuaders use the lack of related articles in a select group of scientific journals as evidence against any who threaten the sacred cows of those who control those particular scientific journals. However, scientific journals regularly engage in viewpoint discrimination and are a means of confirmation bias, and confirmation bias is a form of circular reasoning. Therefore, appeal to control of scientific journals is a form of circular reasoning.

Appeal-to-Definition Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to the Dictionary, Definist Fallacy, Persuasive Definition, Proof by Definition, Escape to Definition, or Argument by Definition)

Using a specialized definition as proof of a conclusion

The persuader who appeals to definition defines a word in a certain way to persuade the audience. However, a definition doesn’t prove any conclusion true. Rather, it only creates the illusion of proof since definitions can’t prove anything.

Example:

Science is naturalistic by definition. Therefore, God cannot be the cause of anything.

In this example, the persuader creates a specialized definition of “science.” However, this definition only proves the person using this definition is using this definition. It doesn’t prove other possible definitions don’t exist, and it doesn’t prove anything about spiritual or natural reality.

Biblical translation arguments are often examples of the appeal-to-definition fallacy. We can find problems with any translation. Some theologians base their theologies on translation errors or on words that changed meaning over the centuries. When theologies need a certain translation, people who prefer those theologies need this translation. Some will even say you don’t dare look at the original language texts. These are examples of appeal-to-definition fallacies.

Often, thinkers will use a definition as a red-herring fallacy. Those who use debate as a game to build their egos will argue about how to define a word. Their entire object is “winning” a debate, so they confuse people and then use that confusion to sway opinions.

However, the appeal-to-definition fallacy isn’t the same as defining ambiguous terms. For example, one person defines “evidence” as interpretation of observation and experience, another person defines “evidence” as observation and experience, and a third person defines “evidence” as absolutely certain proof. These different definitions can lead to confusion, but when each of these people reveals how they’re defining a term, that helps clarify communication. On the other hand, when a persuader tries to use a definition to prove a conclusion, this persuader commits an appeal-to-definition fallacy. To argue about definitions of words is silly. Find out what the words represent? Discuss that.

Appeal-to-Desperation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Desperation, Escape to Desperation, or Argument by Desperation)

Saying “We must do something,” as a reason for taking a certain action

Believing, implying, or saying anguish, urgent pleas, or hopelessness equals authority

Examples:

Persuaders who commit appeal-to-desperation fallacies propose a conclusion and claim it must be done. By creating urgency to force a certain action, they manipulate others. They may display the desperation in irrational behavior like riots. ^{(Overton window)}

Either global warming, climate change, or perhaps global cooling, is going to destroy all life on earth. Therefore, we must act now. We must create a global totalitarian socialist state. It must have absolute power over everything. It must destroy religion.

The problem hasn’t been proved. The solution doesn’t solve anything. It just gives a small number of elites absolute power.

We can justify violent riots since whoever supports free enterprise or believes what God says through Scripture is Hitler. The existence of these Hitlers is a direct attack against us, and we must defend ourselves. What else can we do?

Appeal-to-Emotion Fallacy

(a.k.a. Emotional Appeal, For the Children, Save the Planet, Play on Emotions, Proof by Emotion, Escape to Emotion, or Argument by Emotion)

Using emotion as a reason to believe

Examples:

It means Ken Ham’s word, or his interpretation of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky. It’s a troubling and unsettling point of view ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion coupled with a straw-man fallacy, and we’re supposed to believe the straw-man fallacy because of the appeal to emotion. The issue wasn’t Ken Ham, but it was what God says through Scripture. And nothing God says through Scripture in any way conflicts with what we can observe in nature. At the same time, there’s no question that God is troubling to a person who doesn’t want God to exist and who doesn’t want to acknowledge God. Even though they’re exerting effort to suppress the truth of God in their deceitful trickery, God can unsettle them. And they become troubled and unsettled whenever they find anyone who personally knows Jesus, the real, living Christ. However, the emotion that Bill Nye is feeling can’t change reality.

There’s nothing right or wrong in itself. However, it’s dangerous to say absolutes of right and wrong exist.

That statement is another example of the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. The fallacy is carried in the word “dangerous.” It’s a word loaded with emotion. The statement offers no proof for its two claims. Without any proof, this statement claims nothing is right and nothing is wrong, but the emotion gives the illusion of proof by stirring emotion with the word “dangerous.”

We must have a new school building for the sake of the children.

They don’t mention the average classroom in the current building has only 11 students. They don’t tell us the main purpose of the multi-million dollar tax burden. Two purposes exist. They want a more comfortable and prestigious environment for the teachers. They want specialized sports arenas for the pleasure of certain elite people.

The awe and wonder of the universe stirs the emotions because we are all made of stardust–when I saw Cosmos by Carl Sagan at age ten or eleven. It brought me directly into a profound sense of awe of the universe and life itself, of us all – quite literally – made of stardust. ~ Moe

Moe made this statement dogmatically. The appeal-to-emotion fallacy makes the lie seem beautiful. Of course, Carl Sagan worked hard to popularize the lie that we’re made of stardust, which brings up fanciful images of Tinkerbelle for some reason.

Are we really going to farm every single animal on this planet so we can endlessly continue supplying this blood-lust and thirst of people to consume wildlife products? ~ Animal Rights Spokesperson

A persuader appeals to emotion by using an emotion-inducing statement to support a conclusion instead of using a true premise. Alternately, persuaders may exhibit their own emotions as proof for their conclusions.

Appeal-to-Extremes Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Extremes, Escape to Extremes, or Argument by Extremes)

Stating another person’s position in an extreme or distorted way

Examples:

Your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the Ark . . . ~ Bill Nye to Ken Ham during their first debate

Bill Nye is using an appeal-to-extremes fallacy. Ken Ham never said all the animals were vegetarians before they got on the Ark. No animals ate other animals before the fall, but the fall changed that about 2,000 years before the Genesis Flood. The very good creation wasn’t so good after the fall. The change that took place after the Flood was that God gave the animals to humankind for food, and God put the fear of man into the animals. We don’t know if any other changes took place.

. . . explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago, completely, and there’s no record of it. ~ Bill Nye to Ken Ham during their first debate

Ken Ham never said anything about natural laws changing except to repeatedly say natural laws had not changed. Bill appeals to extremes by taking Ken’s position to an extreme, giving the illusion that it’s irrational. It’s a form of lying. Ken’s position is the Genesis Flood happened and created the sedimentary rocks and most of the geological formations that we now observe. Bill changed Ken’s position to “that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago.”

Related:

straw-man fallacy

Appeal-to-Fake-Hope Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Fake Hope, Escape to Fake Hope, or Argument by Fake Hope)

Hopeful claims used as proof

Confusing God’s hope with human hope-so hope

Examples:

I sure hope this policy helps to bring peace to the earth.

True faith is not a hope-so faith. True faith is a vision of what God is planning to do. It’s a vision of reality that no human can self-generate.

The children of the white racists are the future of the white race. This is where we must begin and end! With Trump in power, it is far too late for conversion of the racist children. Thus we are left with only one option…to do what must be done!! But take heart! After the purge, we will live in a worker’s paradise free from racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and oppression! ~ National Antifa Front

In the appeal to fake-hope fallacy, fake hope, which is related to wishful thinking, becomes the reason for believing something. By contrast, God gives real hope, His vision of reality and of how things will be in the future. We can’t self-generate real hope, but it must come as a gift from God. Real hope shows us God’s certain plan and who we are in Christ. It also shows us what is and is not the body of Christ, how we fit into the body of Christ, and what we are to do right now.

Appeal-to-Faulty-Authority Fallacy

(a.k.a. Faulty Appeal to Authority, Argument from False Authority, Appeal to Improper Authority, Appeal to Unqualified Authority, Unqualified Source, Proof by False Authority, or Escape to False Authority)

Using an authority’s opinion as a reason to believe when the authority isn’t qualified

Examples:

Persuaders who commit appeal to faulty-authority fallacies base their claims on a person or other source (movie, publication, book, etc.) rather than on a true premise. For instance, human authorities, even in their own area of expertise, never have absolute knowledge. All human authorities can be wrong. They can all misrepresent. People with expertise are seldom, if ever, objective and unbiased. The only absolute Authority is God Himself, so there’s no rational way, other than divine revelation, to know any truth.

If a persuader bases a claim on authority, it’s faulty unless the source has absolute knowledge, can’t lie, and can’t be wrong. Even though we may recognize human authorities on various subjects, none of them can provide absolute authority. Therefore, an authority must bring proof of claims and not demand we believe without proof. All human authorities must provide proof of their truth claims. They must give us a way to test this proof and prove it’s true without assuming anything or using other forms of made-up stuff. At the same time, God sets human authority on the earth in governments, police departments, families, and churches, but these aren’t necessarily always right. God remains the only source of all truth.

In the natural, we set criteria for accepting the truth of what a thinker is saying. One example is two or three unbiased eyewitnesses have more credibility than a single witness does. We consider an expert who isn’t an eyewitness less credible than any eyewitness. We consider second-hand accounts less credible. We might believe what eyewitnesses observe if we know the eyewitness and consider them credible. However, we aren’t being rational if we believe what eyewitnesses interpret from what they observe.

We don’t believe interpretation even when the eyewitness is an expert. If an expert has studied a subject thoroughly, this expert can give an informed opinion. Unfortunately, the expert stands on a shaky foundation. The expert is likely to base the opinion on the biases of those who mentored and trained the expert. Those who mentored and trained the expert may base their biases on what they’ve heard from others. We can’t verify these second-hand opinions and biases because we can’t personally find out if these people really know. So, training and education don’t necessarily lead to credibility.

Christ leads, teaches, and corrects everyone who follows Him moment by moment, yet an ungodly thinker may claim these millions of people who follow Christ can’t know Christ. The ungodly thinker may be an expert with advanced credentials in religious studies, yet an expert like that is a faulty authority.

When we hear a personal testimony of Christ’s leading, how can we be sure we’re hearing Christ? God says we need to test the spirits.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. ~ 1 John 4:1

We don’t have to take the person’s word for it since we can personally verify Christ. We can have our own ongoing experiences in which Christ leads us step-by-step as we experience His moment-by-moment leading. In that way, He leads us out of darkness into light, out of error into truth, and out of bondage into freedom to obey Him. That doesn’t make us authorities, but rather, it puts us under the authority of Christ.

Appeal-to-Fear Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum in Terrorem, Ad Metum, Proof by Fear, Escape to Fear, or Argument by Fear)

Using fear as a reason to believe

Believing, implying, or claiming fear is a reason to believe

Persuaders who commit the appeal-to-fear fallacy coerce another person into accepting some statement. When threatened, many people try to fit in and avoid persecution. Those who’ve fallen prey to persuasion through fear may reject revelation of what’s right as they abandon truth, and then they forget they caved in to fear. In other words, they forget they only accepted the rationalizations because of the fear tactics. These compromisers often appeal to fear or ridicule as they try to persuade others to accept their errors.

Examples:

Rocky Rockbuilder: My experience is Jesus is real. I know Him. He leads, teaches, and corrects me moment by moment in every situation. I ask the Holy Spirit to show me the correct interpretation of Scripture, and I believe He’ll do it.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I warn you. That’s dangerous. You should never ask the Holy Spirit to show you the correct interpretation of Scripture. If you’re going to pray to anyone, pray to the saints who wrote the Scripture, and ask them what it means.

Also:

• Using coercion against Christian students in schools.
• Convert-or-die religions.

Examples that Aren’t Appeal-to-Fear Fallacies:

• An electrician pointing out faulty wiring that could burn the house down.
• A follower of Christ pointing out that rejection of Christ leaves an ungodly person without forgiveness and under complete condemnation before God, which is punishable by hellfire.

Appeal-to-Flattery Fallacy

(a.k.a. Apple Polishing, Wheel Greasing, Stroking, Stroking the Ego, Proof by Flattery, Escape to Flattery, or Argument by Flattery)

Using flattery as a reason to believe

Examples:

• Teachers and professors flatter students by telling them they have inner goodness and intelligence. If students don’t bow to political correctness and other forms of godlessness they lose the flattery. Appeal to flattery is persuasive and deceives many naïve people.
• A sales person complements her customer to keep them from rational thought about their decision to buy.

Appeal-to-Force Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Baculum, Argument to the Cudgel, Appeal to the Stick, Appeal to Power, Coercion, Proof by Force, Escape to Force, or Argument by Force)

Using force as a reason to believe

Persuaders who commit appeal-to-force fallacies use force as proof. Force doesn’t prove anything, but it can take people captive.

Force becomes a fallacy when a persuader uses force as a reason to believe. Force isn’t always a fallacy. Since authority must sometimes enforce order with power, we have police forces. We can observe this form of coercive power in governments that receive power from God, but some governments misuse this power. God gives parents coercive power, but parents can misuse that power. God also gives the Church power to discipline, but some people abuse that power. In all these cases, God established limits, in Scripture, to the legitimate use of power.

Since an appeal to force doesn’t provide a sound reason to believe anything, parents can’t force children to know Christ. Still, parents can do everything in their power to help their children get to know Christ personally in a relationship where Christ leads, teaches, and corrects them moment by moment. And the best time is the youngest possible age. If parents do that, the children will believe because they know Christ, and they’ll have the real faith that comes from hearing God’s utterance. Then they’ll respond as the Holy Spirit leads them and teaches them.

Appeal-to-Gravity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Gravity, Escape to Gravity, or Argument by Gravity)

Using personal seriousness or conscientiousness as proof

Example:

Look! I’m serious about this.

Personal gravity will cause more people to believe you, but it doesn’t make your case. You must know why you believe what you believe, and it must be rational. You can impart the faith and knowledge of Christ when you speak as the oracle of God. You speak as the oracle of God when you yield to the Holy Spirit. As God says, “Open your mouth and I shall fill it.”

Appeal-to-Guilt Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Shame, Proof by Guilt, Escape to Guilt, or Argument by Guilt)

Using guilt or shame as a reason to believe a conclusion

Example:

Can you believe it? He said homosexuality is a sin. How small-minded! He ought to be ashamed!

That’s guilt mongering combined with lying. No one needs to feel guilty for speaking the truth in love. Not everyone can receive the truth. No one needs to feel guilty for God’s righteousness.

Guilt isn’t always an irrational response. If we’re guilty, we ought to feel guilty and bear shame. However, guilt never gives us a sound reason to believe.

Example:

Political bullies shout “Shame!” repeatedly to pressure others into giving them what they want.

Appeal-to-Heaven Fallacy

(a.k.a. Gott Mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, Special Covenant, Proof by Heaven, Escape to Heaven, or Argument by Heaven)

A false claim of authority or permission from God when God never gave any such authority or permission

Examples:

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every form of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers) ~ al-Baqarah 2:193

This call to war comes from the Koran, and it claims authority from God.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What makes you think God made some people homosexual?

Sandy Sandbuilder: The Bible says so.

Also:

• adding to Scripture
• false teachers
• false prophets
• politicians who get religious whenever they want to push through some anti-Christ agenda.

The Bible in no way says God made some people homosexual.

Besides, the Bible doesn’t talk. God speaks through the Bible, and God doesn’t condone sin. Christ said He’s the way. He’s the path that leads to the genuine and absolute fullness of life. We walk on this path when we hear His voice and yield in submission to obey Him. We sin if we slip or step off the path. God does reveal reality to us moment-by-moment so we can walk in righteousness.

However, God’s leading never contradicts what He says through the Bible. When God speaks through the Bible, He doesn’t twist the language but speaks plainly. In the appeal-to-heaven fallacy, someone claims God gave a right, yet God didn’t give any such right.

Persuaders sometimes bring up appeal to heaven as a phantom fallacy. They use this phantom fallacy to refute divine revelation. In a phantom-appeal-to-heaven fallacy, an irrational thinker accuses a rational thinker of committing the appeal-to-heaven fallacy. But the irrational thinker bases the accusation on made-up stuff and denying the power of God.

Appeal-to-Ignorance Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument from Ignorance, Argument from a Lack of Evidence, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, Proof by Ignorance, or Escape to Ignorance)

Thinking an unknown is proof

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Using the scientific method, no one has ever proven that God miraculously created the heavens and the earth in six days. Therefore, the Bible has an error because it tells a false story about Creation.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Are you saying Creation isn’t true because we can’t know anything about the distant past by the naturalistic scientific method?

Sandy Sandbuilder is guilty of the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Belief in the Creation depends on divine revelation. God says He created the heavens, earth, and seas and everything in them in six days, creating man on the sixth day from the dust of the earth. Belief in evolutionism depends on made-up stuff.

Sandy Sandbuilder: If we have no compelling evidence for a position then it’s irrational to accept this position as true. We have no compelling evidence for Creation. Therefore, it’s irrational to accept Creation as true.

Rocky Rockbuilder: There’s proof for biblical Creation, and this proof is divine revelation as God speaks through Scripture and Creation. The term “compelling evidence” is deceptive since it simply refers to persuasive words rather than proof. Persuasive stories about a big bang, billions of years, and non-living molecules springing to life and turning into people aren’t proof.

The argument from ignorance is proof for Sandy Sandbuilder’s conclusion, and Sandy implies the argument from ignorance rather than stating it outright. Were Sandy to state it outright, it would go something like this: “I don’t know of any compelling proof for Creation, so no compelling proof for Creation exists. Therefore, the Genesis Creation never happened.”

The persuader who appeals to ignorance concludes something is false because they haven’t seen proof it’s not false. Alternately, the persuader may conclude something is true because they haven’t seen proof it’s not true. In either case, there’s no real proof. Sound reason tells us it makes sense to keep an open mind if we have no absolute proof. However, ungodly thinkers use claims of “no proof” as an excuse to close their minds and to ignore the evidence. They refuse to seek God and to get to know Him. They won’t even open their minds to articles on websites that disagree with their ungodly ideas.

No one needs to commit appeal-to-ignorance fallacies to prove truth. Some have tried. The fallacy proves nothing. God reveals Himself to anyone who seeks Him. He proves Himself to every person. He reveals the history of the universe by speaking to us through Scripture. Therefore, we don’t need the appeal-to-ignorance fallacy. Those who wish to disprove God must rely on appeal-to-ignorance fallacies or some other fallacy.

Appeal-to-Intimidation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Intimidation, Escape to Intimidation, or Argument by Intimidation)

Using intimidation as a reason to believe)

 

Examples:

• The many examples in the movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and the book, Slaughter of the Dissidents
• The bully or abuser who uses aggressive body language and a reputation for beating people up to control those around him
• Vulgarity and abuse in comments posted on YouTube videos or discussion groups
• Peeling off individual members of a group for punishment. This might include job loss, loss of respect, IRS audit, social media bans, public denigration on ungodly news media, investigation by powerful government agencies, and other forms of intimidation.
• Refusing to discuss the evidence against evolution (or for Creation) with leading scientists who have become convinced Creation by God took place a few thousand years ago
• Union members of various public employee unions camping out in the Wisconsin State Capitol, crowding around legislators, shouting at them, and trying to make them fear for their lives
• Isolation of creationists by getting public officials, community leaders, or opinion makers (newspaper editors, news anchors, etc.) to criticize or belittle creationists or treat them as part of a crazy fringe group
• Antifa beating anyone they suspect of disagreeing with their godless Marxist views
• Divide and conquer: Getting some Christians to compromise on Creation with theistic evolution. And then working the two resulting factions against each other
• Union members firing guns into various local Republican campaign headquarters during the Bush election campaign
• Gang members standing outside a voting location with baseball bats

http://expelledthemovie.com/

http://slaughterofthedissidents.com/

Appeal-to-Motive Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Motives in Place of Support)

Using motive as a reason to believe or as a diversion tactic

Examples:

Ungodly Thinker: You’re a Christian because your parents raised you as a Christian. Had you been raised by Muslims, you would be a Muslim.

This is a diversion. Every follower of Christ knows Christ exists because the follower of Christ knows Jesus Christ. The unspoke claim of the ungodly thinker is, “You don’t know Jesus Christ exists. Therefore, Jesus Christ doesn’t exist.” It’s a bare claim. It’s a claim based on made-up stuff. The appeal-to-motive fallacy is a smokescreen to cover up for the bare claim.

It’s not a fallacy to talk about motives. It’s a fallacy to use motives as a smokescreen to cover a bare claim. It’s a fallacy to use motive as proof. Sometimes, the Holy Spirit will tell a Christ-follower about someone’s motive. That’s not a fallacy. The Holy Spirit may reveal the motive for a variety of reasons.

It’s difficult to know one’s own motives let alone the motives of someone else. We know, by revelation, those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ refuse because they don’t want His light since His light would expose their evil deeds.

Appeal-to-Mystery Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Mystery, Escape to Mystery, or Argument by Mystery)

Using mystery (the unknown) as a reason to believe or as a diversion tactic

Using mystery to convince people to believe

Examples:

Question from the Audience: How did consciousness come from matter?

Bill Nye’s answer: This would be a fantastic discovery that would change the world. The nature of consciousness is a mystery. I challenge the young people here to investigate that question.

Bill didn’t have a clue, yet he acted like he gave an answer that proved his point. Since Bill Nye didn’t know the answer, he should reconsider his dogmatic stance on consciousness coming from matter. He should stop dogmatically eliminating the spiritual realm and the Creator.

Question from the Audience: Where did the atoms that created the big bang come from?

Bill Nye’s answer: This is a great mystery! You’ve hit the nail on the head. No. Uh, the, what was before the big bang? This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking. Let’s keep searching.

Once again, Bill couldn’t answer. And again he tried to make it seem like this mystery proved his point. We don’t know how much of the crowd accepted Bill’s answer, but no one should have. Since Bill is dogmatic about the big bang story, he ought to know the answer to this question or give up his dogmatism. His inability to answer this question doesn’t disprove the big bang story, but it does show Bill’s belief in the big bang story isn’t rational. Divine revelation disproves Bill’s story.

A mystery is simply something we don’t know, and there’s no shame in not knowing something. But Bill’s dogmatism about the big bang story demands that he knows the answer to this question.

For comparison, think of the woman who believes the Bible is God’s word without error. She doesn’t know how God made the sun stand still in relation to the earth on Joshua’s long day. God revealed the Bible’s reliability to her. She bases her belief on that revelation. When she doesn’t know a detail that God hasn’t revealed, she still rationally believes in the Bible’s reliability. She hears God’s voice speaking through Scripture. She doesn’t need to know all the details about everything in the Bible to know God showed her the Bible is His word without error.

Bill Nye, on the other hand, must have absolute proof of where the atoms came from before he can rationally believe the big bang story. If he knows where they came from, that’s not enough. He must also prove the big bang happened. For example, if he had personally witnessed it happening, that would prove it to him. He couldn’t prove it to anyone else, though. He isn’t getting his story of origins from God. He hears it from fallible scientists, and he claims to understand the science, yet he can’t answer the most basic question.

Science is what humans can know through observation and experience. However, we can’t observe stories of the past, and that’s why evolutionists commit these appeal-to-mystery fallacies.

Someone may claim something is a mystery but true nonetheless. However, only God can declare something true without external proof since His utterance is proof. His utterance is proof since He can’t lie, and He knows everything. Therefore, we trust God, but everyone else must bring proof. Scientists, intellectuals, and experts often ask us to trust them, but they have no authority to ask for trust without proof. And an explanation isn’t proof. When scientists make up an explanation that goes beyond what they observe or experience, they appeal to mystery since they have no proof. In contrast to stories, God, through revelation, shows us the unknown by divine revelation.

Appeal-to-Nature Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Naturam)

Claiming or believing something is good because it’s natural

Believing, implying, or saying an action, claim, or idea is OK or preferred because it’s natural

Examples:

It’s natural for men to want to look at women, dear. You can’t hold it against me.

This husband tried to appeal to nature to support his cheating eyes. It may be natural, but God hasn’t called humanity to be natural. He calls us to be spiritual and holy. That means He calls husbands to love their wives and be faithful to them.

Marijuana is all natural. Therefore, it’s good.

The appeal-to-nature fallacy presents some problems. For instance, arsenic is natural, but don’t eat it.

Important:

We can also commit the appeal-to-nature fallacy by failing to define “natural.” Are human beings part of nature? If so, is human activity part of nature? If not, why not?

Appeal-to-Novelty Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to the New, Appeal to Modernity, Appeal to Progress, Appeal to the Modern, Ad Novitatem, Proof by Novelty, Escape to Novelty, or Argument by Novelty)

Claiming that something is best because it’s newest

Thinking a change would be good without knowing the change would help

Believing, implying, or saying something is better or true simply because it’s new

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: You’re so old-fashioned. Things have changed. There’s a new morality.

Rocky Rockbuilder: I recognize the new morality. It’s the old immorality.

We used to have something we called “immorality.” Someone labeled that “the new morality.” Now, they started calling it “political correctness.”

Sandy Sandbuilder: Why would you believe anything you read in a book that’s thousands of years old?

Rocky Rockbuilder: I don’t worship the Bible, but God speaks to me through the Bible, and it’s a real, ongoing experience. He speaks to anyone who willingly comes to Him and keeps seeking Him in sincerity, humility, and respect, with a submissive will to do His will. I invite you to know Him.

Rocky has nailed it. Apologists give many reasons to believe the Bible is God’s word. However, we can only know truth by divine revelation. Therefore, the only way we can rationally know the Bible is God’s word is if God reveals it’s His word. Those who receive divine revelation must stand in God’s presence and inquire of Him until He speaks to them.

When God shows us an error in our thinking, and we reject the error in favor of the truth, we aren’t committing an appeal to novelty.

Appeal-to-Offense Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Offense, Escape to Offense, or Argument by Offense)

Using offense as “proof” for a conclusion rather than using a true premise and valid form to draw a conclusion

Examples:

I’m offended. Therefore, I’m right, and you’re wrong.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I have no way of responding. You think you have grounds for being able to discern truth because of divine revelation because you say God is the ultimate source of truth. You say without Him, people can’t make claims to any truth or knowledge. If I, as an atheist, say I disagree, then you dismiss my request on the basis I don’t have any basis for assessing whether something is true or not. It’s forcing me into solipsism whilst you claim to have found the answer to it. It denies me the use of reason and logic and disallows conversation.

Rocky Rockbuilder: I understand your frustration, but it’s not my fault. Since you have no way to manufacture information that goes beyond what you sense with your five senses, you resort to making up stuff. God reveals much of reality to you that you accept and can use to survive. God loves you. And yet, God reveals much of reality to you that you reject. Here’s the trouble you have. You make no distinction between what you make up and what God reveals to you. That’s why you’re unable to answer the question when I ask you how you know what you claim. Solipsists reason consistently. They presuppose “no divine revelation.” Without divine revelation, solipsism is where logic goes. Anyone can know Christ. If I neglected to invite you to know Him, let me invite you now. Christ leads every person who follows Him. I know that by divine revelation.

Sandy complains that Rocky won’t accept any of his reasoning based on made-up stuff. However, conversing with a person who persistently defends making up stuff is an exercise in insanity.

Appeal-to-Patriotism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Patriotism, Escape to Patriotism, or Argument by Patriotism)

Claiming we should do or believe something because doing so is patriotic

A tendency to do or believe something because it’s thought to be patriotic

Believing that truth is determined by what makes one feel and look patriotic

Examples:

This new bill is the law of the land. It’s unpatriotic to think it’s a bad bill.

When a law promotes sin, it’s a bad bill.

The Supreme Court passed Roe versus Wade, so that should be the end of the discussion. To oppose abortion is unpatriotic.

Courts become corrupt when a country drifts away from God. We know that by revelation, and what some politician declares to be patriotism doesn’t have any effect on what God calls right or wrong.

Appeal-to-Poetic-Language Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Poetic Language, Proof by Poetic Language, or Escape to Poetic Language)

Exploiting a human tendency to believe lyrical language

Believing, implying, or saying beautiful language is proof for a conclusion or premise

Examples:

It can’t be wrong when it feels so right. You light up my life.

It can be wrong when it feels so right.

If you can conceive it and believe it, you can achieve it.

Don’t try jumping off a high cliff just because you can conceive and believe you won’t fall.

Imagination creates reality.

God reveals truth and gives us a vision of reality. When we try to self-generate reality using human imagination (made-up stuff), we’re speaking a vision out of our own minds. God says no one should listen to us if we do that.

Poetic language can sweep us in and bypass our ability to discern between truth and error. We witness that in songs and the crafted dialogs of movies and plays. We see it in politician’s speeches. Ungodly thinkers promote false concepts and lull people into a senseless condition with language. They promote every form of sexual immorality, violence, anger, envy, selfishness, and disrespect for authority.

Appeal-to-Pragmatism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Pragmatic Fallacy, Appeal to Convenience, Pragmatism, Appeal to Utility, Argumentum Ad Convenientiam, Proof by Pragmatism, Escape to Pragmatism, or Argument by Pragmatism)

Claiming the easiest path is the best path

Choosing the easiest way because it requires less self-sacrifice

Claiming that something is true because it works

Examples:

There’s a much more practical way. Just cheat (or steal or lie).

Some people say you should get away with whatever you can without getting into trouble. It looks like an easy way, but it’s not.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Christianity is true because it preaches love and caring for other people. Christian organizations founded virtually all hospitals, universities, and organizations that help people. Therefore, Christ exists.

Sandy Sandbuilder gave us true information, but the information doesn’t prove Christianity is true or Christ exists. Sandy is taking the pragmatic approach. Those who follow Christ know Christ exists and is all He says He is. They know it because they know Him, not because He’s good for society—even though He is good for society.

Look at George Soros and how successful he is. He doesn’t know Christ. That proves you don’t have to know Christ to know the truth.

Ungodly thinkers survive through pragmatism. They can know about the present material realm without divine revelation. They don’t acknowledge God or thank Him, which leaves them in the pragmatic problem. He gave each one a mind incapable of rational thought. Those minds can react to data from their five natural senses. He gave them natural instincts. Also, Satan, the prince of this world, has great power and often helps those who serve him.

Ungodly thinkers can do science in the present. They can run money-making companies. They can tweak the markets and steal billions from other people. They can fry eggs.

However, when they try to jump beyond that pragmatism into history, truth, or reality, they’re lost. They can’t rationally talk about proving anything. They lost their freedom. Conditioned responses control them like Pavlov’s dogs.

Pragmatism isn’t about truth. However, pragmatists can give the illusion of truth by devious methods. Ungodly science is pragmatic, meaning it’s useful, but that doesn’t mean ungodly science can reveal truth. God can use science to reveal truth if we recognize His voice. However, ungodly science doesn’t deal with truth.

Therefore, ungodly scientists who make concrete claims about reality are irrational. On the other hand, they can rationally find certain solutions that work in the physical world through God’s mercy and revelation. That means ungodly scientists can only find what works. They can’t rationally make claims about what they can’t directly observe and test. They can’t draw rational conclusions about the mind, the spirit, the spiritual realm, truth, knowing, or God. They can’t observe and test the origin of the creation or any deep history, so they can’t rationally talk about these.

Related:

pragmatic thinking

Appeal-to-Presentation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Presentation, Escape to Presentation, or Argument by Presentation)

Taking presentation quality as a reason to believe

Using presentation to convince people to believe

Persuaders who commit appeal-to-presentation fallacies get people to believe conclusions based on presentation quality rather than through true premises that prove the conclusions. Persuaders appeal to presentation because it works. A great presentation can persuade an audience without making a rational case. We see a trend where persuaders continue to raise the bar for presentations. One presentation outdoes the next.

In post-modernism, there’s no right or wrong, no truth or lie. Post-modern thought only recognizes winners and losers. Post-modernists know they’re more likely to be winners if they give a flashy, entertaining presentation. The drive to win continually pushes presentations to become more convincing.

Appeal-to-Pride Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Superbiam, Appeal to Vanity)

Using the human weakness toward pride to promote a false or unproven claim

Example:

You, students, are too intelligent to believe the stories in some old book [the Bible].

This teacher appeals to pride instead of reasoning rationally.

Appeal-to-Probability Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Probability, Escape to Probability, or Argument by Probability)

Thinking something is probable when it’s not

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Evolution is scientific fact. Duplication, mutation, and natural selection add information to cells all the time.

Rocky Rockbuilder: We should define “information.” Even the smallest step in evolution couldn’t happen without creating a specific form of information known as universal coded information. It would take new, innovative universal coded information. Information isn’t enough since each piece of information needs a complete information system. The process you describe couldn’t supply either the information or the information system. No one has ever observed universal coded information forming naturally.

Sandy: Well, it’s still possible that it happens once in a while somewhere. You can’t prove it doesn’t.

Rocky: I think you’re trying to convince me that molecules-to-humanity evolution took place. You’re not trying to convince me that it might be possible. If so, do you have proof that it happened?

Sandy: If it’s possible, then it must have happened.

Evolutionism’s evangelists never try to prove the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story happened? Instead, they try, unsuccessfully, to prove it’s possible. They presuppose the story. Here’s the attitude. If it’s possible, then it’s probable, then it happened.

Sandy: You claim God leads His people. That’s ridiculous.

Rocky: It’s been my experience and the experience of millions of followers of Christ that He does indeed lead us.

Sandy: Yeah, but did you ever consider you and millions of believers may not be experiencing what you think you’re experiencing?

Rocky: You can easily test it. I don’t give you my experience as proof but as a testimony. Every person who seeks Christ in sincerity finds Christ. If you open your mind to Christ and ask Him to forgive you for resisting Him, He’ll reveal Himself to you. Then you’ll know because Jesus Christ will prove Himself to you. I invite you to know Him.

A persuader appeals to probability by claiming something is probable or improbable, but it’s only remotely possible. In some cases, no one has calculated the probability. Sometimes, someone calculated the probability irrationally. Look for terms like these:

• likely
• more likely
• probably
• obviously
• possibly
• may have been
• could have been
• good chance
• strong possibility

Appeal-to-Rationalism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Rationalizing, Escape to Rationalizing, or Argument by Rationalizing)

Believing the human mind can self-generate knowledge

Examples:

This is to say, when people make assumptions based on radiometric dating, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media, they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. ~ Bill Nye

This rationalism is subtle. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of false cause and effect by saying assumptions come from previous experience. We don’t get assumptions by observing and experiencing reality. We only get a filtered impression of reality. Assumptions come from the imagination, from the worldview/paradigm/fake-reality built in the human mind. We may rationalize our assumptions, but we haven’t proved them. They’re always arbitrary. On the other hand, divine revelation has a source other than the human mind. Divine revelation isn’t arbitrary. However, the human mind may add assumptions to divine revelation or use assumptions to dismiss divine revelation. When we interpret Scripture or Creation, we often add assumptions to what God is saying.

Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in. ~ Isaac Asimov, the inventor of the Agnostic fallacy

Poor Isaac Asimov based all his thinking on rationalism, which means he based all his thinking on assumptions. He rationalized that God couldn’t reveal anything to anyone. In making this blunder, Isaac claimed to know the inner spiritual experience of every person who has ever lived. That’s an insane claim. Were he willing to seek Christ, he would have known Christ.

Rationalizations don’t come from observation or divine revelation. They’re attempts of the human mind to make irrational thinking appear rational. Irrational thinking is thinking based on made-up stuff, assumptions, and stories. When a persuader presents made-up stuff as if it were real, the persuader usually uses smokescreen fallacies to make the made-up stuff seem real. These persuaders may deceive us, but we sometimes deceive ourselves this way too.

Appeal-to-Ridicule Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Mockery, Appeal to Humor, Reductio Ad Ridiculum, Proof by Ridicule, Escape to Ridicule, or Argument by Ridicule)

Using ridicule as a diversion tactic, a debate tactic, or an intimidation tactic

Rather than using a true premise, using ridicule as proof for a conclusion

Yielding to the intimidation of ridicule

Examples:

Yeah, I don’t believe the myths told in the bible (sic) just like I don’t believe in the tooth fairy.

It’s common for the ungodly to use ridicule to discredit Christians who believe the Bible as it’s written. That includes remarks comparing belief in God to belief in Thor, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, etc. In the example above, the word “myth” also presupposes biblical inaccuracy. The disbeliever didn’t capitalize “Bible,” which is bad grammar, but the disbeliever is deliberately showing disrespect for the Bible as an appeal-to-ridicule fallacy.

The following example of the appeal-to-ridicule fallacy is from a television program called “The View.” Joy Behar is ridiculing the experience that the Holy Spirit leads, teaches, and corrects Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States.

Joy Behar: It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness if I’m not correct. Hearing voices.

Sherri Shepard: As a Christian, that’s just par for the course. You talk to Jesus, Jesus talks back. What concerns me is, how long is the conversation with Jesus?

Joy claims to be an agnostic, but her comment shows she has a dogmatic belief that God can’t possibly speak to His people even though He says He can, and He does. So she disagrees with God and with the Bible.

Sherri thinks God puts a time limit on the conversation, so she denies the Scripture that says, “In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

The adult in me did not want to debate with someone so small-minded.

This persuader appeals to ridicule by belittling someone who believes what God says through the Bible about homosexuality. Since the person who made this statement doesn’t have a rational way to reason, she appeals to ridicule.

Let’s look at this next statement made by a frustrated Christian who can’t make his point rationally:

You’re an idiot. I’m laughing at you and your belief in evolutionism.

This statement is disrespectful and appeals to ridicule in place of sound reasoning. In the appeal-to-ridicule fallacy, a persuader uses ridicule to divert attention away from the discussion or to make anyone with opposing views appear foolish. Ridicule, or mockery, is an alternative to rationally seeking truth and persuaders sometimes use it to shut down further discussion. Because of the weakness of ungodly reasoning, students who graduate from ungodly government schools increasingly defend using appeal to ridicule as a valid tool for debate.

Appeal-to-Rugged-Individualism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to the Minority, Proof by Rugged Individualism, Escape to Rugged Individualism, or Argument by Rugged Individualism)

Using the likes, interests, preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc. of a small nonconforming group or even one person as a reason to believe

Examples:

Those who know Christ are the minority; therefore, they must be right.

That isn’t why they can know they’re right, and it’s not even about being right. It’s about being open to correction from the Holy Spirit. If they know Jesus Christ, Jesus is correcting them constantly. They’re constantly learning to know Christ better. They aren’t comparing themselves to others. They’re concerned about the lost and about encouraging their brothers and sisters in Christ. They know Christ, and He teaches them and leads them moment by moment.

Even though the ignorant masses of people reject naturalistic evolution, most scientists believe it. Therefore, naturalistic evolution is a fact.

Since those who control the money in the form of government grants don’t give this money to those who contradict the stories of evolution, most scientists profess belief in evolutionism. They’ll profess belief if they want to have the money. However, this relatively small and biased group doesn’t determine reality.

Appeal to rugged individualism is a form of appeal to the people but to a select group that doesn’t go with the flow. It’s peer pressure within a select group. It has nothing to do with individualism.

Appeal-to-Self-Interest Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Desire, Appeal to Personal Interest, a form of Homily Ad Hominem, Proof by Self-Interest, Escape to Self-Interest, or Argument by Self-Interest)

Using self-interest regarding the personal likes, interests, preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc. of others so they’ll profess belief

Believing because of self-interest

Examples:

I believe in Jesus because I want to go to heaven.

Our desire to go to heaven can’t make Jesus exist. We believe in Jesus because we know Him, and we continue to listen to His Voice leading us because we’ve come to trust Him.

I don’t believe in god since I’m not going to follow any god who wants to restrict my passions.

Many unbelieving people are not as honest as the one who made that statement. However, God reveals those who love darkness refuse to come to the light because their deeds are evil.

Related:

argument from consequence

Appeal-to-Slogan Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Slogan, Simplistic Slogans, Proof by Slogan, or Escape to Slogan)

Using a slogan (or slogans) as a reason to believe

Examples:

A gang of hecklers shouting through megaphones: Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Blah blah blah blah has got to go! Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Blah blah blah blah has got to go! Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Blah blah blah blah has got to go!

That’s a common poem shouted out by irrational mobs. The “blah, blah, blah, blah” part makes it easy to find anything with four syllables the hecklers can stick in there to make it an attack on a person or group of people.

Evolution is science.

In this case, “evolution” means the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story.

Big bang is science.

All the scientific evidence supports evolution.

Here, “scientific evidence” has a special definition that doesn’t mean proof, and “evolution” means the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. Teachers pass these mindless slogans to students, and students mindlessly repeat them.

A slogan is a short statement with an emotional punch used to persuade, and it commits an appeal-to-emotion fallacy. Talking points are often mere slogans.

Appeal-to-Spite Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Spite, Escape to Spite, or Argument by Spite)

Using spite or bitterness as a reason to believe

Example:

Yes, I’m bitter. It makes me mad that some people have so much money, and I don’t. That isn’t fair and you ought to be angry too. Therefore, we need laws to spread the wealth around.

When you read that, it may seem silly. However, many people use this reasoning to defend their covetousness. It’s often used by politicians to gain power, and it’s commonly taught in ungodly schools and universities. However, it’s a logical fallacy of appeal to spite.

A persuader who appeals to spite stirs up bitterness or spite against someone or something. That spite may be against whomever or whatever is opposing the persuader. Spite creates the illusion of evidence.

Related:

appeal-to-emotion fallacy

Appeal-to-the-Exotic Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by the Exotic, Escape to the Exotic, or Argument by the Exotic)

Using the fact something comes from a distant place as a reason for believing it’s better or we can trust it

Persuaders often use the appeal-to-the-exotic fallacy with the fallacy of misleading vividness to create a false aura of believability.

Appeal-to-Tradition Fallacy

(a.k.a. 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, Proof by Tradition, Escape to Tradition, or Argument by Tradition)

Using past practice or tradition as a reason to believe something is true

Examples:

Marriage between a man and a woman is our tradition and has existed for thousands of years. Therefore, homosexual behavior is wrong.

Marriage between a man and a woman is our tradition and has existed for thousands of years. Therefore, sex outside marriage is wrong.

The conclusion is correct in both cases, but the logic isn’t rational. Why would we use irrational logic? We could make people think the conclusion is false, so fallacies work against the truth even when we’re right.

All distortions of marriage are sins against God. That’s true. However, tradition isn’t a sound reason, and anyone who uses such an argument muddies the water. God defines what marriage is, and God says His order for marriage is a loving, life-long commitment between one man and one woman. That’s the reason. The reason is God speaks to us through the Bible, and He tells us. He created us to walk into the absolute fullness of life in His specific pattern and order. The order of the home is integral to God’s plan. Anything conflicting with God’s pattern and order is disgusting to God.

Everyone on the faculty believes in evolution. If you don’t believe in it, keep your mouth shut. It’s the way it is. You aren’t going to change it. Don’t make waves.

This persuader tries to promote evolutionism because it’s tradition. Of course, no one can rationally defend evolutionism. Consider that every major scientific breakthrough, without exception, has gone against the majority view. That means every major scientific breakthrough breaks the current so-called “body of knowledge.”

This is how we do church. If we try to change to the orders of Scripture, half of the members will leave.

The appeal-to-tradition fallacy claims current practice or belief should continue and we should reject change. That doesn’t mean every break with tradition is good since we’ve witnessed many destructive and evil changes.

Appeal-to-Vulgarity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Vulgarity, Escape to Vulgarity, or Argument by Vulgarity)

A form of appeal-to-intimidation fallacy in which vulgar language or action is used to bypass reason

Example:

This guy is a ?#$% and the equivalent of ISIS since he believes what’s written in the Bible.

Persuaders without reasons for their beliefs may resort to vulgarity. Comedians without talent use the same tactic. And those who laugh at the vulgarity reveal something about themselves. People in all walks of life will appeal to vulgarity in an attempt to prove they’re important. It’s an alternative to learning skills and working hard.

Appeal-to-Wealth Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument to the Purse, Appeal to Money, Argumentum Ad Crumenam, Appeal to Poverty, Argumentum ad Lazarum, Proof by Wealth, Escape to Wealth, or Argument by Wealth)

Using wealth as a reason to believe

Examples:

If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?

This old saying nails the fallacy. It implies if you’re smart you’ll be rich, and it implies if you’re rich, you’re right. That’s not reasonable since many exceptions exist.

What would you know? You can’t even earn enough to live in a decent house.

We can’t rationally dismiss an argument simply based on how much money someone makes because doing so fails to assess the argument on its merits.

If you’re rich they think you really know. ~ Fiddler on the Roof

With the appeal-to-wealth fallacy, a persuader implies a conclusion is true because a person who supports the conclusion has money or possessions. We see this fallacy with endorsements by celebrities. Some people fall for it.

Apples-and-Oranges Fallacy

Comparing unlike things in a way that deceives or causes misunderstanding

Persuaders who commit the apples-and-oranges fallacy choose the wrong point of comparison in a way that causes confusion or a false impression. We can compare any two or more things since we always have some point of comparison, so comparing unlike things isn’t necessarily a fallacy. It’s a fallacy when a persuader makes the comparison in a way that gives a false impression.

Example:

Bill Nye compared the air-breathing animals at the time of Noah’s Ark with all animals, bacteria, and insects that might be living now. In this comparison, he included bacteria and insects in the current numbers. He didn’t mention God didn’t bring two of every kind of bacteria and insect to the Ark. Bill also included imagined, unobserved species in the current numbers. If Bill had been rational, he would have compared the two similar groups below:

• Air-breathing animals on the Ark.
• Air-breathing animals people now observe.

Instead, he compared these two groups, creating a false impression:

• Air-breathing animals on the Ark.
• Air-breathing animals and non-air-breathing animals people now observed or imagine.

The insects, bugs, bacteria, spiders, etc. far outnumber the air-breathing animals. Bill used this trick to make us think the rate of speciation since the Genesis Flood would be impossible.

Apriorism Fallacy

Beginning with abstract principles to come up with supposed “facts”

Rational thought begins with facts that lead to conclusions, but the supposed “facts” of apriorism can’t be real facts. We can’t verify them. We can’t verify abstract principles. We can’t verify presuppositions.

Often, complex reasoning hides apriorism. Here are the steps:

1. Start with a worldview that gives an illusion of reality. [We’re rarely aware of our worldviews since our worldviews seem like reality to us.]
2. Pull presuppositions from the worldview. [We’re often unaware of our presuppositions. Many people defend their presuppositions as a sound basis for thought.]
3. Use the presuppositions to interpret observations or data.
4. Forget these abstract principles aren’t facts.
5. Use the abstract principles to reason toward a conclusion.
6. Defend the conclusion as if facts supported it.
7. Use the conclusion to reinforce the worldview from which it originated.

Arbitrary-Thinking Fallacy

Reasoning based on random choice or personal whim

You wouldn’t think arbitrary thinking could convince anyone, but it convinces many people because they find effective ways to mask arbitrary thinking.

All our assumptions are arbitrary since we pull them from our worldviews, and worldviews don’t necessarily represent reality. Worldviews come from impressions over time. We forged our worldviews in emotion and confirmed them by circular reasoning. That’s why assumptions and presuppositions we pull from our worldviews are always arbitrary. Arbitrary thinking is always irrational, yet it’s common.

It’s possible for reasoning to appear orderly and yet be arbitrary because arranging thoughts in an orderly way doesn’t mean they reflect rational thought. In other words, we can sort total nonsense according to size, color, or any other attribute. We find arbitrary thinking in poems with perfect meter, rhyme, and cadence. Rational thought, on the other hand, requires true premises and proper form, so the conclusion follows from the premises. And thinking that doesn’t reason from true premises using proper form is arbitrary. For example, any thinking that requires even a single assumption is arbitrary.

Arcane-Explanation Fallacy

Claiming that we’re supposed to believe without proof because only a few people can understand the proof

As an example of the arcane-explanation fallacy, a self-declared elite group may tell you, “You wouldn’t understand.” Then you’re just supposed to take their word for anything they claim. In many ways, the arcane-explanation fallacy is like an appeal-to-mystery fallacy.

Other Examples:

The reason evolution seems counterintuitive to you is you haven’t had enough scientific training.

I realize it may seem strange to say everything came from nothing. I would explain it to you, but without an advanced degree in physics, you wouldn’t understand. You’ll just have to believe me.

Alternately, a persuader may explain, but she explains it in a way we can’t understand. For instance, a persuader can use jargon to give the illusion of proof, and the person hearing the convoluted jargon-laden explanation may not ask for clarification for fear of looking stupid. The explanation may be gibberish. No one can blow smoke up our noses like the so-called “intellectuals” and “experts.” Here’s an example of what one so-called expert said.

Lucretius said, “nothing can be created from nothing.” But he didn’t know about quantum mechanics and inflationary cosmology that claim something coming from nothing wouldn’t violate the First Law of Thermodynamics because gravitational energy is negative as a consequence of the fact, mathematically proved, that the energy of a closed universe is zero. The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. So something can come from nothing without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. There’s a ton of evidence including Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles as the mathematical basis.

That statement is utter nonsense. And a persuader can confuse us with a statement like that. However, that statement skirts the real issue. Here’s the real issue. We would have to observe or experience what the persuader is trying to prove. Otherwise, the persuader didn’t prove it to us. This persuader didn’t experience or observe it either. The claims this persuader is making are empty sayings.

Big bang evolutionists don’t try to prove everything we now observe sprang into existence from nothing, but we would need this proof if we were going to believe them and be rational. They just suppose it could have happened. That’s useless. We would need a way we could test it happening rather than just listening to fanciful stories about nothing creating everything. We could show them how they could taste and see the Lord is good. We could tell them how to know the Lord. They have no experience with nothing creating everything, and they can’t tell us how to have any such experience.

The arcane explanation above is simply a red herring to keep us from noticing there’s no proof. Nothing proves this story happened. Instead of proof, these persuaders appeal to possibility, which is a fallacy. In the theoretical world, anything can happen.

Some biblical creationists say, “Evolutionism is impossible.” They may say, “The big bang story is scientifically impossible.” However, these are appeals to impossibility. They rely on not knowing any way the claims of evolutionism and a big bang could have happened.

Those defending evolutionism and a big bang can rationally respond by saying, “Anything is possible. Therefore, molecules to humanity and the big bang story could have happened. We just don’t know how.” However, they go beyond this to say, “Therefore, molecules to humanity and the big bang story happened. We just explained how it happened. It’s obvious. It’s science.” When they say things like that, they commit the appeal-to-possibility fallacy and the arcane-explanation fallacy.

On the other hand, a persuader may give us an explanation in general terms and tell us it was simplified because we wouldn’t be able to understand. The arcane-explanation fallacy left the emperor naked in The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Sometimes irrational thinkers falsely accuse rational thinkers of committing the arcane-explanation fallacy. For instance, a person who isn’t born again can’t see the kingdom of heaven, but that’s not an arcane explanation. We would be committing an arcane-explanation fallacy if no one could check it.

However, anyone can check it. Anyone can believe and commit to Jesus Christ. Those who do can see the kingdom of heaven. It’s checkable. Therefore, it’s not an arcane-explanation fallacy. We would commit an arcane-explanation fallacy if seeking and knowing Christ was difficult or complex. However, God makes it so simple anyone with a sincere mind can do it.

Anyone can check it because knowing Christ transforms the born-again person. Those who are born by the Holy Spirit can see God’s kingdom. This is the simplicity found in Christ. Anyone can know Christ. He’s a person, not an idea or theology, and anyone can verify His reality by coming to know Him. There’s no need for special training or equipment.

All who sincerely ask Christ to forgive their sins and to rule over them are born again, and they come to Christ because they’ve heard God speak to them. They may hear Him through a follower of Christ who’s speaking to them by the Holy Spirit, or they may hear Him speaking through the Bible. They may hear Him speaking through their consciences or by some other method. Rejecting Him when He speaks amounts to refusing to look at the evidence, and that results in spiritual blindness. The more we ignore Him, the more our hearts become hardened against Him, but the more we seek Him, the more He draws near to us.

Whoever listens to God’s voice receives faith. What is faith? Faith is imparted certainty with substance. Faith comes to those who acknowledge Christ, and they ask Christ to forgive them and rule over them, at which point they’re born into God’s family, and Satan no longer controls them. Once they’re born again, the Holy Spirit begins to teach them, correct them, and lead them on an ever-upward path, and their eyes begin to see. The Holy Spirit gives them the power both to will and to do righteousness, so they’re no longer slaves to Satan to do evil perpetually. God gives the gift of righteousness to anyone who will receive it. Anyone who’ll yield to Christ can know Him, and knowing Him begins a walk toward increasing spiritual vision. Therefore, we don’t commit arcane-explanation fallacies if we tell people about being born again to see the kingdom of heaven.

Arguing-a-Minor-Point-While-Ignoring-the-Main-Point Fallacy

Focusing on a side issue, silly point, or quibble to ignore the main point

Example:

“Being Liberal” posted the following in a graphic on Facebook:

If common sense was used in government and the U.S.

citizen: I don’t believe in abortion.

government: Then don’t have one.

citizen: I don’t believe in birth control.

government: You don’t have to use it.

citizen: I think gay marriage is sin.

government: Don’t marry the same sex then.

citizen: I want my kids to learn about creationism.

government: Take them to church then.

That’s a red herring that sends us chasing minor issues while ignoring the major issues. Ungodly people are using the government to indoctrinate kids in the religious views of the story of evolution, moral relativism, and communism. They’re using the government to force Christians to pay for abortions and birth control. They’re forcing Christian pastors and business people to participate in gay marriage. As a result, there’s no equal protection for all beliefs under the law, and there’s increasing governmental pressure to prevent Christians from even saying sin is sin. The meme mentioned something it called “common sense.” However, whoever made the meme thought his or her worldview was common sense. Whoever made the meme thinks those who disagree “lack common sense” and are “small-minded.” That means the so-called “common sense” isn’t common.

Argument-by-Consequences Fallacy

(a.k.a. Parade of the Horribles, Argumentum Ad Consequentiam, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Proof by Consequences, or Escape to Consequences)

Using consequences as a reason to believe

Believing that negative consequences are a reason to reject a belief

Believing that positive consequences are a reason to accept a belief

Examples:

If we teach Creation in schools, children will not learn to think.

The persuader is committing the logical fallacy of argument from consequences using a false consequence. However, even if it were a true consequence, it wouldn’t prove Creation false or evolution true. Consequences don’t change the reality of Creation; nor do they change the foolishness of evolution. However, this claim is a lie since teachers must teach children to think irrationally if the children are going to accept evolutionism and reject creationism.

Of course, global warming is a reality. Have you thought about what’s going to happen? It will be the end of the world as we know it unless we can have a totalitarian worldwide government.

The appeal to consequences doesn’t prove global warming. There’s no measurable global warming happening over the last 15 years. The one-world-government people started with the alarm over global cooling in the 1970s and are now switching to the term, “climate change.” The term “climate change” is so vague they can use every event to try to create their totalitarian regime.

The resolution focused on the way that creationists across the continent, using the model pioneered in America, have been targeting education, and warned of a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude, it concludes, may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous. ~ Peter C. Kjærgaard

Peter implies teaching Creation, or even teaching the whole truth about the problems with evolution, would confuse students. The article assumes evolution is true and Creation is false without giving any evidence to support the claim. Peter claims mixing evolution with Creation confuses children, a claim that exposes the fact that evolution is a religion. If Peter is right, then we can’t let the children hear both sides of the issue. Letting them know all the information and possible interpretations would be dangerous. That’s an argument from consequences where Peter substitutes supposed consequences for rational thought.

God doesn’t exist. And, there’s no evidence of God. And I’m not going to seek Him as you suggest because I’m not going to be subject to any God.

The disbeliever fears the consequence. This persuader doesn’t want to be subject to God. This particular consequence is real if we submit our lives to Christ. The disbeliever won’t look at the evidence because of the consequence. However, the disbeliever irrationally claims the consequence is evidence of the non-existence of God.

The persuader uses consequence as the premise to prove something true or false. The consequence becomes the reason to believe or disbelieve. A persuader claims something is false because believing it might have negative consequences. Alternately, a persuader claims something is true because believing it might have positive consequences. Persuaders often couple the appeal-to-consequences fallacy with an absurd extrapolation. They try to create fear of something unlikely to happen.

That’s not to say weighing the risks of a certain decision is a fallacy. When we don’t know what to do, it’s wise to choose lower potential risk or higher potential gain. In other words, while we can’t use risks to know if something is true or false, risks do sometimes suggest the best decision. We can rationally use consequences as a reason to do or not do something. We can’t rationally use them as a reason to believe something or to disbelieve something.

For example, Pascal’s wager is risk assessment. It doesn’t prove anything, but it shows there’s no risk in finding Christ and eternal risk by rejecting Him. It shows the sane decision. Once a person decides to find Christ, Christ proves Himself to that person. If we used Pascal’s wager as proof for God, we would commit an argument-from-consequences fallacy. However, Pascal’s wager is valid for decision-making when there’s no true premise.

On the other hand, if Pascal’s wager could result in a make-believe commitment to Christ without any real commitment to Christ. It could create a false sense of security. Through a genuine relationship with Christ, we can have a true premise if we have a sincere desire to know the truth. That’s because anyone willing to acknowledge Christ and submit to Him in obedience to do His will can know Christ. Christ imparts the Holy Spirit to everyone who follows Him. Then the Holy Spirit leads them from glory to ever-greater glory. The Holy Spirit teaches them and corrects them as He leads them toward all truth.

Argument-by-Denial Fallacy

An attack (usually ad hominem) made by pretending to pass over a matter and then believing, implying, or saying the attack proves some point

Both paralipsis and apophasis are arguments by denial. Apophasis mentions by not mentioning. Paralipsis mentions by saying we should not mention it. Persuaders distance themselves from what they’re saying using arguments by denial. These fallacies are forms of hedging.

Examples:

I’m not going to mention Dave’s evil ways, but it just goes to prove he can’t be trusted.

It wouldn’t be right to bring up Al’s gambling habit right before the election, but perhaps voters should consider it.

Argument-by-Omniscience Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Omniscience, Escape to Omniscience, or Appeal to Omniscience)

Claiming that something that couldn’t possibly be known without knowing all things

Examples:

We know evolution [meaning lifeless-molecules-to-human] happened.

We can’t observe the distant past, but that was a statement about the distant past. Claims about the distant past are arguments from omniscience unless God reveals the claims. People who commit argument-from-omniscience fallacies are claiming to be God or to have received revelation from God. Some of them think the controlling group of scientists is God.

Naturalism [another word for godlessness] is necessary for science.

Public schools throughout the world teach this statement or something similar. Naturalism claims there’s no spiritual realm, but a claim like that would require omniscience. Naturalism provides no cause for the regularity of nature, but God, speaking through the Bible, tells us Jesus Christ is the cause. If scientists believed there was no cause for natural laws, then they couldn’t know everything won’t change tomorrow since they don’t know what’s keeping everything the way it is.

Anyone who says God doesn’t exist is claiming to be omniscient. Anyone making this claim is also ignoring the obvious evidence. When challenged to look at the evidence, to seek God and find Him, those who love ungodliness refuse to seek Him or seek Him insincerely. They don’t repent, and they have no desire to leave sin behind them. Even though they ignore the proof, Christ proves Himself. He reveals Himself to anyone who comes to Him in repentance and submission, wanting to do His will. Anyone can check it.

Arguments by omniscience are fallacies because only God is omniscient. When a fallen human claims omniscience, that person has lost touch with reality.

Examples:

• Universal negative and universal positive claims require omniscience.
• An ungodly persuader who claims God can’t overcome the weakness of the human mind and impart divine certainty directly is claiming to know all things.

Argument-by-Personal-Astonishment Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Astonishment, Escape to Astonishment, or Appeal to Astonishment)

Using amazement as a reason to believe

Believing, implying, or claiming personal astonishment equals authority

Examples:

Ken Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature. ~ Bill Nye

Billions of people, but these same people do not embrace the ‘extraordinary’ view that the earth is ‘somehow’ only 6,000 years old. ~ Bill Nye

How would these things have settled out? Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinarily short amount of time is, for me, not satisfactory. ~ Bill Nye

Besides the words “remarkable” and “somehow,” Bill used the word “extraordinary” upwards of 20 times during a single debate as evidence for his assertions against the history recorded in Scripture. A persuader using the argument by personal-astonishment fallacy thinks wonder and astonishment is a reason to accept or reject a proposition.

Argument-by-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Question, Escape to Question, or Appeal to Question)

Asking a question or many questions not easily answered with this implication: “If you can’t answer my question, then I’m right, and you’re wrong”

Example:

1. Since starlight has gotten to earth from billions of lightyears away, how did it get here if the universe isn’t billions of years old?

Cosmologies exist that claim possible ways the light could have gotten here within the creation week, but those cosmologies don’t prove the history. No one knows the answer to this question, but that’s not an issue.

Persuaders who commit the argument-by-question fallacy commit a specific form of argument from ignorance. An argument by question is a fallacy because no one’s lack of ability to answer a question has any impact on reality. Persuaders often use arguments by question in cooperation with assumption-correction-assumption fallacies.

We can reasonably ask for proof. That’s not a fallacy. However, if a person makes a claim but doesn’t have a true premise proving the claim, that doesn’t disprove the conclusion. While the inability to prove a claim doesn’t disprove the claim, it’s a good reason to have a mind open to other ideas. Since irrational thinkers often use fallacies to give the illusion they’ve proved a conclusion, a question can point out the lack of proof.

Argument-by-Rhetorical-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Rhetorical Question, Escape to Rhetorical Question, or Appeal to Rhetorical Question)

Asking a question without expecting an answer and using that question as an unsupported assertion

Examples:

. . . is that really reasonable? ~ Bill Nye

Is it reasonable that Noah . . . ? ~ Bill Nye

Is that reasonable? ~ Bill Nye

Is it reasonable that we have ice older by a hundred than you claim the earth is? ~ Bill Nye

. . . and isn’t it reasonable that . . . ? ~ Bill Nye

Bill implied Ken Ham wasn’t reasonable. Bill implied he was reasonable, yet none of Bill’s statements proved his implication. Bill did provide fallacies as proof, and he also provided these questions as proof, but rhetorical questions can’t prove anything.

Persuaders who commit argument-by-rhetorical-question fallacies ask questions to imply statements rather than asking questions to learn something. And while a rhetorical question can be a legitimate presentation tool, we should be aware of its use, and we shouldn’t just believe what persuaders imply by rhetorical questions without receiving genuine proof. When persuaders use rhetorical questions as bare claims, they’re committing unsupported-assertion fallacies by innuendo. They make their assertions seem real by implying them with rhetorical questions.

Argument-by-Selective-Refutation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Selective Refutation, Escape to Selective Refutation, or Appeal to Selective Refutation)

Refuting certain points while ignoring others

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Do you think there might be something you don’t know about the universe? The reason I ask is your argument rests on your ability to imagine as if your own imaginative capacity is the measure of truth. For instance, you say, “The only way I can think of, to explain the contradiction . . .” Why would your ability to think of something limit what’s possible? If you can’t dream something up, that doesn’t make it impossible.

You presuppose a contradiction as if your imagined contradiction is some part of reality when it’s just a vapor. I find it interesting that you bring up violating the laws of logic. You declare that God can’t violate the laws of logic as if you are the one who understands all the laws of logic.

But we humans know almost zero about the laws of logic compared to what God knows. When you mention “the laws of logic,” you really mean the laws of logic as you personally understand them. Have you ever considered the possibility that God might know more than you? Consider the vast expanse of those truths you don’t understand, have never imagined, or can’t know. Is it possible that, in that vast expanse, there might be a way God got the distant starlight to earth within the biblical timeline?

Sandy Sandbuilder: You said, “contradiction is some part of reality when it’s just a vapor.” I see a very real contradiction between stars millions of lightyears away and an earth that’s not that old.

Sandy Sandbuilder decided to restate his point while ignoring the reasoning that refuted his point. Persuaders who commit argument-by-selective-refutation fallacies often ignore points that strongly expose their irrational thinking while they address points that don’t expose their irrational thinking. Alternately, they emphasize minor points, while ignoring major points. They address points they can cloud in confusion while they ignore points that refute them in an easy-to-understand way.

They quibble about definitions or interpretations while they ignore rational and irrefutable arguments. In cases where more than one piece of evidence supports a conclusion, they ignore strong evidence or a strong line of reasoning and only address the weak evidence.

Argument-by-Vehemence Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Vehemence, Escape to Vehemence, or Appeal to Vehemence)

Using forcefulness as a reason to believe

Examples:

• raising the voice
• using vulgarity
• typing in all caps
• speaking with more emotion
• using exaggerated body language

Argument-from-Design Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by Design, Escape to Design, or Appeal to Design)

Claiming it’s irrational to use the fact that something looks designed as a reason to believe it’s designed

A phantom fallacy that’s an argument-against-the-evidence fallacy

Examples:

Rocky Rockbuilder: The space shuttle looks designed. Therefore, it is designed.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You just committed the argument-from-design fallacy.

–

Rocky Rockbuilder: That car looks designed. Therefore, it couldn’t have popped into existence from natural processes.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You just committed the argument-from-design fallacy.

–

Rocky Rockbuilder: Archaeologists found coins in a Japanese castle dating back to 300 to 400 A.D, and these coins are similar to coins designed by the Romans. Therefore, the Romans probably designed them.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You just committed the argument-from-design fallacy. Those supposed coins are probably just natural formations that were created by natural processes.

–

Rocky Rockbuilder: The universe appears designed, and we don’t know of any other way it could have come into existence other than God creating it.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You just committed the argument-from-design fallacy.

Arguments from design use inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can’t give a certain answer in the way deductive reasoning does. As a result, we should state inductive conclusions tentatively. Arguments by design use inductive reasoning as do all conclusions of secular science. With every example given, we can verify design in other ways. If we’re certain about anything, we must ground our proof in divine revelation. God reveals reality to every person who observes the creation. God reveals Himself through His creation, through Scripture, and through other means as well, so everyone has proof. He says those who deny the Creation event, the Genesis Flood event, and the coming judgment event are willingly ignorant. He says those who refuse to glorify and thank Him are without excuse.

Argument-from-Hearsay Fallacy

(a.k.a. Telephone Game, Chinese Whispers, Volvo Fallacy, Rumor, Proof by Rumor, Escape to Rumor, or Appeal to Rumor)

Using a supposed eyewitness account as proof when the person using the account wasn’t the eyewitness

Examples:

Of course, science has proved there is no God. My science teacher told me so.

Someone told that to the science teacher. Does the science teacher know that source, or did she read it in a book? If science proved it, where is the experiment? (There is none.) Did the student repeat the experiment and personally observe it, or is the student just believing hearsay from the teacher? Does the observation prove the claim, or did the experiment use a hidden assumption? Students should ask similar questions when reading hearsay in a textbook.

Scientists have determined the earth is 4.6 Billion years old. We have their testimonies in the scientific journals.

However, if you look well into the matter, these claims are based on many arbitrary assumptions and just-so stories that quickly discredit the testimonies.

On the other hand, by experience we know the God of the Bible exists. And He tells us the Bible is His word, without error. He speaks through the Bible and tells us He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in just six days. He tells us the number of generations between Adam and Christ along with the lifespans. If we can’t calculate the exact age of the earth, we know, by revelation, God created the heavens and the earth in six days. We know the number of generations between Adam and Christ because God has personally revealed that to each of us, speaking to us through Scripture. That’s not hearsay. It’s our personal experience, and it’s ongoing. Any person can check it out. All they have to do is seek their Savior, Jesus Christ, with an honest desire to leave all sin behind, to follow God’s holy will, and to continue seeking Christ in sincerity, humility, and submission.

Persuaders who commit argument-from-hearsay fallacies give a testimony other than eyewitness testimony as proof. The closer to the original observer, the more accurate the evidence is likely to be. Most of what we read or hear is hearsay. When peer pressure bullies us to believe the claims of media or schools, we need to remind ourselves to be careful.

Argument-from-Silence Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ex Silentio, Proof by Silence, Escape to Silence, or Appeal to Silence)

Drawing a conclusion from the absence of comment in a historical document

Examples:

The Bible contains no explicit statement that the earth isn’t billions of years old; therefore the earth is billions of years old.

I have several reasons that flow out of the text of Genesis 6-9 itself for believing the Bible does not require a global flood. The first of these is universal language in the Old Testament is rarely literal. In other words, “all the Earth” rarely means all the Earth in the Old Testament. Does Genesis 41 require that people from all nations on Earth came to Joseph to buy grain? Only the most ardent hyper-literalist would insist people came all the way from China and Mesoamerica to find food. Most Bible scholars recognize that “all nations” is an idiom, not a statement to be taken absolutely literally. I could give many other examples. In the Genesis Flood account, the Flood was certainly universal from Noah’s perspective. He looked out the window and saw water from horizon to horizon. It was certainly a huge flood. But the universal language in the text does not require that the Flood covered the entire globe as we 21^st-century people understand the globe.

Notice the switch from “does not require a global flood” to “In the Genesis Flood account, the Flood was certainly universal from Noah’s perspective. He looked out the window and saw water from horizon to horizon. It was certainly a huge flood.” It goes from a post-modern deconstruction of the meaning of language to an imaginary story about Noah’s perspective. The phrase “does not require” becomes fake-proof for a local flood.

Argument-from-Small-Numbers Fallacy

(a.k.a. Small Sample Size Bias)

Generalizing from a small sample size

The argument-from-small-numbers fallacy is a hasty generalization and a statistical fallacy. Statistics can’t yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which never provides certainty.

Argument-from-the-Negative Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by the Negative, Escape to the Negative, or Appeal to the Negative)

Believing or claiming one conclusion is true because another conclusion is false

It’s common to claim two choices are the only two choices when more choices might exist. It’s common to claim two choices are mutually exclusive when they could both be true or could both be false. Also, it’s often impossible to prove we’ve identified all the possible choices. However, some forms of argument assure a mutually exclusive condition like when the choices are X or not-X. For instance, either God created everything in six twenty-four-hour days or God didn’t create everything in six twenty-four-hour days.

If we have only two mutually exclusive choices, then we haven’t committed this fallacy. In this case, one being true makes the other false, and one being false makes the other true.

The argument-from-the-negative fallacy is similar to the black-and-white fallacy.

Argument-to-Moderation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Temperantiam, Middle Ground, False Compromise, Gray Fallacy, Golden-Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of the Mean, Splitting the Difference, Proof by Moderation, Escape to Moderation, or Appeal to Moderation)

Proposing that somewhere between two positions or conclusions, there’s a correct or true position or conclusion

Examples:

Through the Bible, God tells us He created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. He tells us about the worldwide Flood that killed everything that breathes except for those preserved in the Ark. Some scientists say the earth is billions of years old, evolution created all life. And they say there was no worldwide Flood since the worldwide Flood would have destroyed any fossil record if billions of years actually happened. We don’t want to be unscientific, so there must be a way to imagine billions of years and evolution into the Bible and to imagine the global Flood out of it.

Sadly, that has happened in many churches even though all the so-called “science” wasn’t science at all.

We’re having trouble getting people to join our church, so let’s say Satan and demons don’t exist. We’ll get rid of the doctrine of hell, and we’ll eliminate anything about sexual morality. However, we’ll keep saying the creeds, and we’ll hold strong on the doctrine of God existing.

That unfortunately also happens, but there’s no middle ground here. Of course, sometimes preachers spend so much time and effort preaching Satan and sin that Satan and sin get all the glory. However, Satan exists, sin exists, and God has a reason for telling us about them.

We often see the argument-to-moderation fallacy in politics and demands for Christians to compromise on moral or biblical issues. Often, if people will stop positional bargaining, they find they want the same outcome. We hope they want truth and righteousness. If two people will pray and yield to the Holy Spirit, they’ll find God’s will concerning what they should believe and do. If they both seek the Spirit’s leading, they’ll come to the right solution together. That isn’t the same as a compromise. Compromise limits God’s blessing, but finding the solution by seeking God provides God’s full blessing.

Argument-to-Veneration Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Respect, Proof by Veneration, Escape to Veneration, or Appeal to Veneration)

Using respect for a group or a person (other than God) as the reason to believe

Examples:

It’s inappropriate for you to scoff at evolution!

You ought to give reverence to the majority of scientists who believe the earth is 4.7 billion years old.

How dare you imply homosexuality is a sin. Have some respect for the great secular minds who declared it natural and good.

Many things deserve respect, but respect isn’t a reason to believe any conclusion. Sometimes Christians will appeal to veneration when defending the Bible or trying to convince a disbeliever concerning Christ. However, that’s neither rational nor necessary. Rather, Christians can tell of their experiences with Christ’s leading and then invite disbelievers to know Christ and follow Christ’s leading. If a disbeliever is a sincere thinker, the disbeliever will seek and find Christ. Then the disbeliever will know.

Argumentum-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

Directing attention to the person to distract from the issue

Examples:

You’re a crazed religious nut, and therefore I’m not going to listen to a word you say or try to refute your arguments.

I’ll bet you get your information from [insert a person here]. He isn’t believable.

There’s a reason that I don’t accept your, the Ken Ham model of Creation . . . ~ Bill Nye [There’s no Ken Ham model of Creation.]

A persuader who commits argumentum ad hominem focuses on a person instead of evidence and reasoning. That focus may take the form of discrediting a person to “disprove” what the person is saying, but it can take other forms. The only time it may be rational to focus on the person is when the person is the premise of the argument. It makes sense to focus on the person when the person asks you to believe because of their authority, intelligence, or something like that. Suppose a persuader says “most scientists say so” as a way to prove a point. You would not commit a fallacy if you say most scientists are wrong every time someone discovers something new. Until the discovery, most scientists had a different opinion. You aren’t attacking scientists. The persuader used “most scientists say so” as proof. You’re saying “most scientists say so” isn’t proof.

Argumentum-ad-Imaginibus Fallacy

Dismissing a concept because graphics explained the concept

Example:

You used a diagram to explain this. That makes me doubt you.

The graphics could be a video, a slide show, an image, or anything else. If a persuader uses graphics to explain, that’s not a fallacy. A video, diagram, graph, or picture can help understanding. If someone dismisses a point because graphics were used to help explain the point, the one who dismisses the point commits a fallacy.

On the other hand, prepared graphics can deceive. Some persuaders have no real proof, so they base their case on a convincing presentation. That’s the fallacy of appeal to presentation. Persuaders can use slick presentations to convince naïve people who don’t know how to ask questions like, “What makes you think so?” Presentation and explanation isn’t the same thing as proof. Although it’s difficult in a world of every-more-advanced presentations, we must ignore presentation (high quality or poor quality) and focus on proof. Most of the presentations we see are one-way presentations where we have no option to ask questions.

Argumentum-Ad-Invidiam Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Envy)

Using envy as a reason to believe

Examples:

How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can’t have it all. ~ Bernie Sanders

If rich Americans weren’t so greedy, we wouldn’t need Obamacare. ~ Benjamin L. Corey

Persuaders often imply argumentum-ad-invidiam fallacies. Both examples used envy to “prove” a conclusion. However, envy isn’t a good way to prove a conclusion. The conclusion of this fallacy is often, “We need a bigger, more powerful and oppressive government, hopefully, a global government that can create a true utopia.”

As-Far-as-Anyone-Knows Fallacy

Claiming something is true because no one knows it’s not true

Examples:

As far as anyone knows, no one has ever received a vision from God.

We currently believe statin drugs are the best way to avoid heart problems. It’s our best guess.

When a persuader states a premise that no one can prove to be true, the persuader may use the as-far-as-anyone-knows fallacy as a smokescreen. The persuader may use this fallacy to sell a conclusion without proving the conclusion. That’s similar to the best-in-field fallacy since both assume personal omniscience. If we say no one knows of an exception, we assert a universal negative and claim amazing familiarity. We claim to know the experience of every person.

Also, the as-far-as-anyone-knows fallacy is always an argument from ignorance. It argues from ignorance even when the form doesn’t claim omniscience. For instance, using “as far as I know” or “as far as we currently know” is an argument from ignorance if someone uses the phrase as a way to support a conclusion.

Assuming-Facts-Not-In-Evidence Fallacy

Reasoning using premises based on assumptions

Believing what hasn’t been observed or experienced

Example:

We’ve invented the science of astronomy. We’ve invented life science. We’ve invented physics. We’ve discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. ~ Bill Nye

There’s no fact in evidence that human beings invented any science. God revealed these truths to humans. We know God reveals any scientific knowledge since God says He has hidden all knowledge in Christ. Persuaders often claim there’s evidence when what they’re calling “evidence” is actually an interpretation of observation and experience, and that results in phantom evidence.

Assuming-the-Cause Fallacy

Claiming one thing causes another when the cause and effect relationship is merely assumed

Examples:

Capitalism fosters unfair competition.

Capitalism leads to an ugly consumerist culture.

Christianity causes depression.

Biblical morals cause sexual misery.

Atheism causes freedom and goodness.

Persuaders used these assumed causes as “proof” for other conclusions. However, proof must be true. No one has proved any of these examples. Persuaders assumed the cause. It’s easy to make many claims, but we ask these persuaders to prove the claim absolutely or give us a way to prove the claim absolutely to ourselves. Divine revelation refutes every one of these claims as follows:

Capitalism fosters unfair competition. No. Ungodliness fosters unfair competition.

Capitalism leads to an ugly consumerist culture. No. Ungodliness leads to an ugly consumerist culture.

Christianity causes depression. No. Ungodliness causes depression.

Biblical morals cause sexual misery. No. Ungodly morals cause sexual misery.

Atheism causes freedom and goodness. No. Godliness causes freedom and goodness

Assumption-Correction-Assumption Fallacy

Assuming silence means agreement

Feeling that an assumption is true unless someone corrects it

A persuader makes a claim based on assumptions. No one corrects the assumptions on which the persuader bases the claim. Then the persuader uses the assumption-correction-assumption fallacy to pretend he proved the assumption. Since no one corrected the assumptions, the persuader assumes they’re true.

In the Nye-Ham debate, Bill Nye used assumption correction assumption with the tactic of tossing the elephant. As Bill tried to overwhelm Ken Ham with many false claims, Ken didn’t have time to correct some false assumptions. Then Bill and other atheists treated those false claims as if Bill had proved them.

Persuaders also commit assumption-correction-assumption fallacies by stopping anyone from correcting the claims. News media uses the same tactic by repeatedly accusing one of their political foes and then doing all they can to keep anyone from hearing conflicting information. Schools teach socialism, evolutionism, and moral relativism, and exclude anyone who doesn’t agree. They exclude dissenters until they can make claims without correction. They then use the artificially-produced lack of correction as proof for their claims. Ungodly universities are an example of this tactic since they exclude those who don’t agree with the ungodly worldview and then claim the resulting false consensus proves the ungodly worldview. Secular scientific journals follow the same pattern.

Assumptive-Language Fallacy

(a.k.a. Grammatical Presupposition or Embedded Presupposition)

Framing language in a way that implies certain unproven claims as if the persuaders had already proved them without making the claims openly

A persuader uses assumptive language to make claims that others are less likely to challenge. The persuader words the claims to make critical thinking less likely by hiding presuppositions in the language. The persuader works these hidden assumptions into language in clever ways. When we hear this language, if we don’t challenge the claims, we accept them without critical thinking. Then we think the claims are part of reality. We insert them into our worldviews.

Statement: Evolution is a fact.

This straightforward claim is easy to spot and challenge, unlike the following:

Assumptive Statement: Since evolution is fact, those who don’t accept evolution aren’t dealing with reality as it is.

The persuader uses the word “since” to presuppose the claim “evolution is a fact.” A skilled critical thinker will catch the trick, but those who are naïve will think the statement is true.

Atheist-Definist Fallacy

Using the definition of the word, “atheist,” “secularist,” “agnostic,” or a similar word to prove the validity of atheism

Examples:

You don’t understand the definition of atheism. We don’t disbelieve God. We just don’t have enough evidence to believe in God. Prove God exists, and then I’ll surely believe.

This persuader wants an unequal burden of proof. No proof would be adequate since the persuader is simply trying to win an argument. Regardless of the proof, the persuader can say, “That’s not enough proof for me.” In this particular case, the atheist usually refuses to look at the evidence. The evidence is Christ Himself since every person who seeks Him finds Him. When we tell this persuader to seek Christ, the persuader either refuses or claims to have tried it and failed. We frustrate ourselves if we play this mind game with the persuader.

Of course, the persuader does know God exists and knows all about Christ since God has revealed Himself to the persuader. We would be better off asking the persuader to prove God is wrong since God reveals the persuader knows, and God reveals the persuader’s “senseless mind becomes darkened.”

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. ~ Humpty Dumpty

Ungodly thinkers have increasingly been using the atheist-definist fallacy. Persuaders use the atheist-definist fallacy to set up a deceptive failure-to-state-position fallacy. These persuaders don’t want to defend the position of disbelieving God, but they want to find some weakness in those who know Jesus Christ. By creating a special definition for “atheist,” these persuaders hope to avoid defending their own positions.

Related:

definist fallacy

Atheist-Phobia Mistake

Unreasonable fear of atheists

Atheists often use force or fear to manipulate. New atheists are politicking to erase Christians. Since atheism has the most violent history of all religions against followers of Christ, some Christians have become fearful. This fear is wrong. Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, but God revealed to us He hasn’t given us the spirit of bondage again to fear. In Christ, we have victory without fear.

Authority-of-the-Select-Few Fallacy

Using the opinion of a select few people as the final authority

Believing, implying, or claiming only an elite group can interpret the evidence

Perhaps a select group does have a better perspective and understanding. But, if they have this understanding, they can explain it simply, and they can show the process by which they think they know what they claim to know. They can use true premises and valid form when making any claim.

Examples:

You should trust scientists and believe whatever they say.

This reasoning rarely refers to all scientists, but it only refers to those who believe a certain conclusion.

Our denomination’s theologians understand the Bible, so we shouldn’t question their interpretations of Scripture.

God does set certain individuals to receive revelation. That was true of Moses and other prophets. It was true of the apostles.

Autistic-Certainty Fallacy

Using personal belief as a reason for believing

Examples:

We most assuredly know that life began due to chance. We know that natural selection can drive toward increasing complexity when the increased complexity provides a survival value. When viewed retrospectively, the evolutionary sequence looks determined – but that’s not evidence of any design, natural or supernatural. Looked at retrospectively, your existence is the result of numerous chance events: millions of bondings between specific individual ova and sperms; any broken link in the chain and you would not exist. ~ discussion group post

Reading this paragraph, one wonders whether there’s anything this person doesn’t know. The persuader makes many claims but gives no rational support for any of them. If you know Christ personally, and if He teaches you, He says He created the first life. He directly saw to it you would be born. He knew you before you were born. We know that fact by divine revelation, not by unsupported assertion.

We have fossils of very simple life-forms that date back to 3.5 billion years ago! That’s 3,500,000,000! As you go through the fossil record, towards the present day, more groups appear; plants, trees, flowers, animals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals all pop up. In some cases, we have been very lucky and the fossil record has preserved an animal or plant that links two different groups. These ‘intermediates’ show evolution caught in the act! One good example is the evolution of four-legged, land-living animals from fish. Creatures like Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega look a lot like a fish with flimsy legs, and they are actually the link between fish and amphibians! Animals like these lived at the water’s edge about 375 million years ago, first propping themselves up on their front legs to gulp in air, then eventually evolving limbs which they could use to walk. ~ Stephen Montgomery

Stephen spent much time explaining why the evidence isn’t there before writing this opinion. However, in contrast to his claim, no undisputed intermediates exist between kinds (roughly families) of living organisms. And yet, he’s certain intermediates exist and even mentions some specific examples. However, those examples fail.

Autistic certainty is difficult to deal with. Those who use their own beliefs as a reason for believing often don’t realize what they’re doing. Since they aren’t aware, they’ll deny it when challenged. They hide their autistic certainty with other fallacies. For instance, they may say their reason for believing is “science” or “evidence,” but they can’t show any real science or real evidence. That, of course, is because all they have is phantom science and phantom evidence. Some will say their basis is the Bible, but the Bible verses they quote don’t prove what they’re claiming. Rather than using the truth in the Bible as proof, they’re depending on autistic certainty. They just use the Bible as a smokescreen to hide their fallacy.

Availability-Heuristic Fallacy

Fixating on the initial ideas to make a decision

Believing, implying, or saying whatever comes to mind is the most important information for decision-making

Examples:

• Political campaigns try to create vivid, emotional talking points most people will easily remember, especially after they repeat those points many times.
• The “Cosmos” series is a slick presentation slanting the facts so they give the illusion of proof for the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. Persuaders designed the presentation to create memories in the minds of kids so they would apply the availability heuristic.

Avoiding-Specific-Numbers Fallacy

Using statistics with fuzz factors of hedging words surrounding them or using general terms

The fallacy of avoiding specific numbers is a statistical fallacy.

Examples:

The existence of God is improbable!

It’s very likely the big bang story took place.

We hear statements like these, but where are the numbers, the percentages of probability? If the persuader supplies numbers, how did the persuader calculate the probability? Did the persuader assume some numbers and, thus, make the entire calculation void? What formula did the persuader use to calculate the probability and how did the persuader verify the formula is trustworthy?

Related:

ludus

Avoiding-the-Issue Fallacy

Trying to turn the focus away from the subject to something irrelevant

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: If you believe there’s evidence for the General Theory of Evolution, how did the first self-replicating life come to be?

Sandy Sandbuilder: That’s abiogenesis, and we aren’t talking about that.

Rocky: Abiogenesis is “chemical evolution.” Some people call it “prebiotic evolution.” The General Theory of Evolution says all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. So how do you say the first self-replicating life came to be?

Sandy: I could answer that, but it’s not what we’re discussing. You’re changing the subject.

Perhaps Sandy Sandbuilder is avoiding answering the question because the stories used to support abiogenesis aren’t even as convincing as the stories used as evidence for evolution.

Avoiding the issue can take many forms, and here are some examples:

• irrelevant evidence
• changing the subject
• being offended
• missing the point
• showing anger
• showing contempt
• dismissing the issue without a reason
• addressing some other point

Axiomatic-Thinking Fallacy

(a.k.a. Pretending, Supposition, Unsupported Assertion, Alleged Certainty, Appeal to Common Sense, Bare Assertion, Unprovable Statement, Groundless Claim, Assumption as Fact)

Irrationally claiming a groundless fabrication is part of reality

Pretending

Making believe

Examples:

Evolution is a proven fact.

Science shows the earth is billions of years old.

God doesn’t exist.

You are following blind faith, and you have no evidence.

The persuader accuses someone of not having evidence, but the persuader must prove the accusation. Where is the evidence that faith is blind? Where is the proof that true faith isn’t evidence in the form of certain proof? Faith is the evidence since faith comes when God speaks. When God speaks, what He says is a fact. God gives this gift as a vision of reality as it is.

Axioms consist of made-up stuff. Most ungodly thinkers believe making up stuff is the same as proving the made-up stuff. They make up stuff and believe the made-up because they make up a story that claims their made-up stuff is true stuff. They think their axioms aren’t made-up stuff because they think their axioms are obvious. Be alert for statements beginning with “everyone knows,” “obviously,” “we would all agree,” “it’s just commons sense,” and such.

Because the persistence of still-soft vessels, matrix and cells in fossil remains millions of years old is unexpected and, if original, refutes models of degradation, decay and fossilization, it is important to document pathways and patterns that may lead to such preservation, and to propose viable and testable mechanisms for preservation based upon known and well-understood chemistry and molecular interactions. . . . If these components are demonstrated chemically to be original, a mechanism must exist to allow their persistence across geological time. ~ NCBI, Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present

There’s no mention in this paper the millions-of-years story may be in error. The story presupposes millions of years so strongly it ignores the evidence. When NCBI ignores the evidence, it makes these unsupported assertions:

refutes models of degradation, decay, and fossilization

If these components are demonstrated chemically to be original, a mechanism must exist to allow their persistence across geological time.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information presumes millions of years. It takes it as an axiom. However, no one has ever proved the concept of millions of years. Persuaders presuppose the concept of millions of years. Ungodly thinkers have advertised it until it’s become a truism. It’s not true, but many people think it’s true. Observation indicates this Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton is a few thousand years old or younger.

The axiomatic-thinking fallacy is at the root of every fallacy. Axioms consist of made-up stuff. Persuaders usually hide the made-up stuff with at least one smokescreen fallacy. Axioms come in many flavors. We call them assumptions, big lies, half-truths, presuppositions, ipse dixit, and outright lies.

Bad-Statistical-Data Fallacy

Making judgments based on inaccurate numbers

Examples:

• When people are asked questions about their past, they may not remember, or they may not want to answer honestly. That skews surveys.
• Political and ungodly goals cause researchers to skew the statistical data purposely as in the Kinsey Report.

When the data isn’t accurate, all the calculations can be performed correctly and yet give the wrong answer, so we can’t rationally use a wrong answer for further reasoning.

Related:

statistical fallacy

Bait-and-Switch Fallacy

Giving a word or phrase more than one definition in the same argument

Examples:

We observe evolution everywhere from generation to generation which makes evolution a scientific fact.

This persuader first defines “evolution” as the observed small changes resulting from turning various genetic switches on and off. Scientists call this process epigenetics. Scientists observe it. However, the second time the persuader used the word “evolution,” she changed the definition. The second time she used the word, she defined “evolution” as the unobserved historical story. The persuader says natural processes changed one kind of living organism into another. The persuader claims natural processes evolved one-celled living organisms to ever-more-complex living organisms. Finally, ape-like creatures turned into humans according to the story. That’s the molecules-to-humanity evolution story. The persuader is claiming evolution created new information systems that offered new functionality. No one has seen new information systems coming into being by natural means.

Related:

fallacy of equivocation

Bandwagon Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to the People, Appeal to the Public, Argumentum Ad Populum, Ad Numerum, 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, or Appeal to the Multitude)

Using popularity as a reason to believe

Examples:

All those scientists can’t be wrong.

Many pastors and priests believe in evolution. Therefore, it’s acceptable.

Get with it. Everyone sleeps together. It’s no big deal.

Young people often get into trouble because of the bandwagon fallacy. They have an impression of what other kids think, and those who disagree add to this impression by not speaking up because they feel intimidated. So they take their bandwagon impression as proof for the bare claims they hear. Adults do the same thing. However, Christ said if anyone is a friend of the world (culture) they can’t be God’s friend. God reveals reality, and the opinion of the majority is irrelevant.

Barefoot Fallacy

Assuming that only the government can provide a certain product or service

Examples:

Politician: If the government doesn’t provide education, all but the wealthy will be ignorant.

Politician: If the government doesn’t provide free abortions, all but the wealthy will be pregnant.

Politician: If the government doesn’t provide family counseling, all but the wealthy will have crummy families.

Politician: If the government doesn’t guide church doctrine, all but the wealthy will have politically incorrect doctrine.

The governments of the world often try to be the Church. In a sense, they try to become the Secular Humanist Church. But rather than collecting money from Secular Humanists, they tax the general population to support the “good works” and doctrinal training of the Secular Humanists. Christians hand their children over to the ungodly government so the ungodly government can train them into ungodliness and socialism.

In certain matters, within a limited scope of responsibility, the governments have the God-given authority and do a good job. Governments try to expand the scope of their authority to those areas that God has given to the Church, families, and individuals. When they do, the government has proved to be consistently unjust, inept, inefficient, corrupt, unwise, and destructive. ^{(Government Solipotence)}

Barking-Cat Fallacy

Agreement, but with an exception that amounts to disagreement

Examples:

I’m a Christian in my own way.

Anyone who’s a Christian must do follow Him in His way.

I follow Christ too, but I don’t allow that to affect my lifestyle.

The exception overshadows the agreement.

A persuader says he accepts a proposition with one exception. This one exception is inherent to the proposition. That means the persuader rejects the proposition based on the exception.

Persuaders who commit the barking cat work the fallacy two ways. First, they give the illusion of open-mindedness when they have closed minds. Second, they sometimes use the barking cat to disagree without anyone challenging the disagreement. They make claims but state their claims as exceptions, so most people don’t even realize they’ve made a claim.

Barnum-Effect Fallacy

(a.k.a. P. T. Barnum Effect, The Fallacy of Personal Validation, or The Forer Effect)

Regarding vague descriptions as accurate when they can be interpreted in different ways

Examples:

Rationalwiki: Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents. This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proved although the current evidence is generally supportive of it. Give those crazy scientists a half-billion or so years to play, though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!

That sounds like it links to something in the real world. It does not. It’s pure fabrication and wishful thinking.

LiveScience: Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called “microevolution.” But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales. The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called “mutations.”

This vague description sounds like it gives quite a bit of information about the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. However, it doesn’t say anything. There’s no proof that any of it is true. Of course, there couldn’t be. It’s a story about history that doesn’t rest on the writings of the times. This story rests on the interpretations of observations people made in the present. The people who are interpreting the observations base their interpretations on the ungodly-thinking fallacy. Evolutionists know mutations cause death.

Any mutation in the genetic code … would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word … changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change … Unlike an ordinary mutation, which might, say, slightly lengthen a leg, shorten a wing or darken an eye, a change in the genetic code would change everything at once, all over the body, and this would spell disaster. ~ Professor Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth

Natural selection is like a quality control tester at the end of the coffee pot assembly line. Every time a non-functioning coffee pot comes through, the tester throws it into the junk heap. How long would a tester have to do that before all the coffee pots turned into waffle irons? It would never happen. It’s a quality control job.

Horoscopes, fortune-telling, and politics often use the Barnum effect. Unfortunately, ungodly education propaganda and ungodly news propaganda use the Barnum effect far too often.

Base-Rate-Neglect Fallacy

(a.k.a. Base-Rate Fallacy, Neglecting Base Rates, Base Rate Bias, Prosecutor’s Fallacy, or Ignoring Proportionality)

Using specific instances or unrelated instances rather than using verified and validated statistically relevant data

The base rate-neglect fallacy is a statistical fallacy.

Bayes’-Theorem Fallacy

(a.k.a. Backwards-Thinking Fallacy, Backwards-Reasoning)

Fallaciously reasoning backward from an observation to the cause by guessing rather than having a true premise

Beginning with the desired conclusion and reasoning backward from the conclusion to the supposed “proof,” shoehorning the “proof” to fit the desired conclusion

The Bayes’-theorem fallacy often leads to fishing for evidence and rationalization rather than rational thought based on sound reasoning. The term itself is misleading since the Bayes’-theorem fallacy hides what’s happening. What’s happening is often guessing.

While we can use Bayes’-theorem without fallacy, we must supply two probabilities to this mathematical formula. To avoid the fallacy, scientists must precisely and accurately know the two probabilities they use in the calculation. Scientists must be certain the two probabilities are correct. These two probabilities become part of the premise. How do they calculate those two probabilities without any assumptions?

In many of the cases where scientists use Bayes’ theorem, they can’t calculate probabilities sanely. They make assumptions. When they can’t rationally calculate the probabilities, they’re using Bayes’ theorem to give the illusion of science and reason when all they have is speculation. If scientists don’t have a true premise, the math of Bayes’ theorem is a smokescreen. Bayes’ theorem becomes a way of pretending the entire calculation is more than a guess based on made-up stuff.

Begging-the-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Vicious Circle or Chicken-and-Egg Argument)

Reasoning by using the conclusion as a premise to support the conclusion

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Science confirms that God doesn’t exist.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Agrippa’s trilemma destroys science if God doesn’t exist and reveal Himself to humanity. You may know Agrippa’s trilemma as the Münchausen trilemma or Albert’s trilemma. If you presuppose naturalism as any part of your thought process, then your logic fails because of Agrippa’s trilemma. A chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. To be rational, you must start this chain with absolute truth. However, ungodly thinkers have only infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. That’s all they can have without divine revelation. So what makes you think science confirms that God doesn’t exist? Are you beginning with the assumptions of materialism and naturalism? What are your starting assumptions?

Sandy: I don’t get that about Agrippa’s trilemma. However, the axioms of science are materialism, naturalism, and uniformitarianism. They’re absolute.

Rocky: Axioms are just assumptions someone dogmatically believes. Materialism is a way of claiming there’s no God, and naturalism is another way of claiming there’s no God. Uniformitarianism is a way of claiming the Genesis Flood never happened. So, you’re assuming “no God” as a starting point of reasoning to prove “no God.” You’re begging the question.

The persuader who begs the question uses the conclusion as part of the proof. However, the persuader usually hides that bit of flimflam to keep us from seeing the fallacy.

Related:

circular reasoning

Belief-Perseverance Fallacy

(a.k.a. Conceptual Conservatism)

Continuing to hold a belief despite of evidence against it

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Without Christ, you have no way to have a true premise. Without a true premise, it’s impossible to have rational thought. You base every thought on a premise that consists of made-up stuff. That’s the axiomatic-thinking fallacy.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I would say I’ve always been rational, and I don’t believe in Christ.

Rocky: You claim you’ve always been rational, but you make the claim irrationally. You can’t even prove your bare claim to yourself.

Sandy: I take my ability to be rational as an axiom.

Rocky: That means your committing the axiomatic-thinking fallacy. You’re making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true.

Sandy: I would say you’re irrational to imply it’s not rational to base my reasoning on axioms.

Sandy Sandbuilder has a worldview, a fake reality, just as every person has. Thinkers who commit belief-perseverance fallacies do so because some information comes to them that doesn’t match their worldviews. Whatever doesn’t match their worldviews seems unreal and insane. Whatever matches their worldviews seems to make sense to them.

Best-in-Field Fallacy

(a.k.a. Best Guess, Abductive Fallacy, Retroduction Fallacy, or Retroductive Fallacy)

Assuming the “best” theory is accurate or even a good theory

Example:

So as the world changed, as it did, for example, the ancient dinosaurs, they were taken out by a worldwide fireball apparently caused by an impact; that’s the best theory we have. ~ Bill Nye

If we’re going to find the best, how do we guard against bias in the criteria we use to define the “best?” The theory that matches our inner worldviews or inner desires seems best. It’s the most compelling to us. The best-in-field fallacy is the logical equivalent of the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. An abductive argument looks for the simplest, most likely explanation, which falls into the best-in-field fallacy. However, the explanation isn’t necessarily true. Persuaders seldom determine which is “most likely” using valid statistical analysis. Rather, they use a subjective value obtained by gut feelings and rationalizations. Their worldviews largely control this gut feeling.

We might also confuse the word “explanation” since two types of explanations exist. Some explanations simply show details of what we observe. For instance, we may explain the electrical system of a complex piece of machinery. We may point out the circuits, switches, and other components and how they relate.

Other explanations go beyond what we observe. For instance, we may try to explain concepts and stories we can’t observe. These explanations are like dreams or theories. They’re fabrications. The best-in-field fallacy uses an explanation that goes beyond what we observe.

Biased-Authority Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Biased Authority)

Believing, implying, or saying a biased source of information is the only legitimate (or best) source

We won’t find an expert without any bias or who can escape his or her own worldview? On the other hand, God knows everything and can’t lie, and He’s available through Jesus Christ. What God reveals to us is unbiased.

Biased-Calculation Fallacy

Skewing calculations to favor a certain outcome

Scientists calculate gene mutation rates by comparing a chimp genome to a human genome. That only makes sense if they presuppose Darwinism. Of course, presupposing Darwinism doesn’t make sense since it’s an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. They then divide the number of mutations by six million. They use six million since they presuppose chimps and humans diverged from an unknown ape-like creature six million years ago. That’s a second axiomatic-thinking fallacy. In this way, by circular reasoning, they confirm the presupposition by the conclusion.

Biased calculation is a statistical fallacy. Even without this fallacy, statistics yield only inductive reasoning.

Biased-Conclusion-from-Statistics Fallacy

Skewing data to favor a certain outcome or conclusion

For statistics used to calculate old-earth conclusions, scientists doing the research hear only one side of the argument. They’re trained to interpret the facts with bias to favor old-earth conclusions. This bias often results in bizarre conclusions. People accept bizarre conclusions because they fit the paradigm. Anything outside the paradigm seems bizarre, so they accept bizarre conclusions to support the paradigm. They have a paradigm (fake-reality) that excludes a young earth, so evidence of a young earth seems bizarre to them.

Biased-Experimental-Method Fallacy

(a.k.a. Unreliable Experimental Method)

Skewing the results either intentionally or unintentionally by manipulating the experimental methods to favor a certain conclusion

Biased-Method Fallacy

Skewing the results either intentionally or unintentionally by manipulating the methods of getting data to give the illusion of support for a certain conclusion

Biased method is a statistical fallacy.

Biased-Observational-Method Fallacy

Skewing the results either intentionally or unintentionally by manipulating the methods of observing and recording observations to favor a certain conclusion

Biased-Reporting-of-Observations Fallacy

Skewing the results by filtering reporting to fit a certain worldview or preparing the reports to favor a certain conclusion

Biased-Reporting-of-Statistics Fallacy

Skewing the representation of statistical data to give the illusion of support for a certain conclusion

Examples:

• graphics or charts not proportioned to the numbers
• leaving out vital information
• using emotional language
• over-stating the case
• making ambiguous comparisons
• neglecting the baseline
• playing with mean, median, and mode
• misreporting the numbers
• failure to report anomalies (Anomalies are often not anomalies at all but simply observations that conflict with false presuppositions.)
• failure to report all assumptions, alternative assumptions, and honest evaluations of the consequences of using the alternative assumptions

Biased-Statistical-Method Fallacy

Skewing the results by using a statistical method that favors a certain result

Big-Lie Fallacy

(a.k.a. Staying on Message, Talking Points, or Mantra)

A lie repeated confidently and continually despite all evidence against it

Deceivers use the big-lie fallacy by repeating a lie through many outlets and sources. Many people will believe a lie if it’s repeated often enough. The larger the audience, the more likely it is some people will believe the lie. It also helps to have many voices telling the lie. These voices may spread propaganda through highly-regarded, but co-opted sources. The more diverse the voices, the more convincing the lie. The big-lie fallacy depends on people who’ll repeat the lie as if it were the truth. The big lie is a counterfactual fallacy with political savvy and deliberate deception.

Examples:

• Persuaders repeat ungodly stories like the evolution-myth through tax-supported schools, universities, museums, zoos, parks, governmental agencies, and more. They also repeat these lies in books, songs, news outlets, dictionaries, encyclopedias, advertising, and many other communication outlets. Entertainers and sports figures add their voices.
• Various branches of science all echo the same lie. Those who refuse to echo the lie lose their funding. Without funding those voices are gone. Then they tell us many lines of evidence prove the lie. They all tell the same story, yet it’s a house of cards. It’s a big-lie fallacy.

Bigotry-Fallacy

A false accusation of bigotry

The bigotry fallacy uses the label “bigot” for anyone who disagrees with the person using the bigotry fallacy. True bigots are a real problem. However, persuaders commit the bigotry fallacy when they falsely accuse others of bigotry.

A true bigot treats others with hate or intolerance.

Intolerance: refusing to allow the existence of another person or group of persons.

A Christian who shows loving concern for a person who is lost and headed for hell isn’t bigoted. Followers of Christ don’t commit bigotry when they warn those involved in sexual sin of the consequences from their sin. At the same time, it’s hypocritical for anyone involved in extramarital sex to judge any other sexual sin.

Bizarre-Hypothesis Fallacy

(a.k.a. Far-Fetched Hypothesis)

Proposing an unlikely or impossible hypothesis

A persuader claims a hypothesis is the best explanation for what we observe. But the persuader can’t prove this hypothesis has any basis in fact. It’s just a story based on assumptions.

Examples of the bizarre-hypothesis fallacy:

• stories that claim life came from non-living material without God doing it
• stories that claim natural processes created information systems and added them to cells until a simple cell turned into a human being after billions of intermediate steps
• stories to explain away massive amounts of sediment left behind by the Genesis Flood, claiming something else deposited the sediments without any catastrophic cause

Blind-Men-and-an-Elephant Fallacy

(a.k.a. Partial-Information Fallacy)

Using partial information to make dogmatic claims

Examples:

One group of theologians agrees that salvation is by grace apart from works, so no one needs works, and they gather the Bible verses to back up their argument. Another group of theologians agrees that faith without works is dead, and they gather the Bible verses to back up their argument. Both factions find ways to explain away the Scripture verses that conflict with their ideas.

We can be sure Scripture doesn’t conflict with itself, so grace doesn’t conflict with works. Scripture tells us righteousness is a gift, and we can yield the members of our bodies to His righteousness. Righteousness is free; it’s a gift; it’s by grace, but we must yield to it. We’re learning to hear His voice and to respond in submission.

Blind-Obedience Fallacy

(a.k.a. Blind Authority or Team Player)

Doing something or believing something just because someone says we must

We may sense something wrong with some command or teaching. For example, our bosses may ask us to do something, and we immediately know it’s dishonest or even illegal. The blind-obedience fallacy ignores this check from the Holy Spirit and just blindly does what the boss says. Of course, our bosses may fire us when we don’t agree, but that’s a separate fallacy of appeal to coercion or appeal to fear.

Bold-Faced-Lie Fallacy

(a.k.a. Bald-Faced Lie or Barefaced Lie)

A lie told openly and plainly

A bold-faced lie isn’t a veiled lie, but rather, it’s a lie in the open, just as bold-faced text in a book is obvious. It’s a lie told without shame and brazenly. Though the liar may not know it’s a lie since those who aren’t consciously aware they’re lying spread error much more effectively.

Brainwashing Fallacy

Using any of a variety of techniques to short-circuit reason

Brainwashing is often a systematic process and often involves pressure tactics. Sometimes it happens organically. Then, neither the person brainwashing nor the one submitting to the brainwashing knows what’s happening.

For example, the public school system brainwashes students into believing relativism, evolutionism, old-earth dogmatism, socialism, and liberalism. Not every teacher is doing the brainwashing, but the many teachers who have been doing it are destroying society.

Butterfly-Logic Fallacy

Erratic reasoning that bounces around from point to point erratically, making it difficult or impossible to analyze the logic

Example:

Question from the Audience: Outside of radiometric methods, what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the earth?

Bill Nye: The age of the earth. Well, the age of stars. Let’s see. Radiometric evidence is pretty compelling. Also, the deposition rates. It was, uh, Lyell, uh, uh, a geologist, who realized, he, he, my recollection, he came up with the—first use of the term “deep time.” When people realized that the earth was, had to be much, much older. And a related story, there was a mystery as to how the earth could be old enough to allow evolution to have taken place if the sun were made of coal and burning, it couldn’t be more than 100,000 or so years old, but radioactivity was discovered. Radioactivity is why the earth is still as warm as it is. It’s why the earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millennia. And this discovery, it’s something like this question, without radiometric dating, how would you view the age of the earth, to me, it’s akin to the expression, well, if things were any other way, things would be different. This is to say, that’s not how the world is. Radiometric dating does exist. Neutrons do become protons. And that’s our level of understanding today. The universe is accelerating. These are all provable facts. That there was a flood 4,000 years ago is not provable. In fact, the evidence for me at least, as a reasonable man, is overwhelming that it couldn’t possibly have happened. There’s no evidence for it. Furthermore, Ken Ham, you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls. There are many, many steps in what appears to be the creation, or the coming into being of you and me, and those steps are consistent with evolutionary theory.

Butterfly logic can make us feel a little dizzy as it jumps from point to point and then comes to a conclusion that hasn’t been proved by the logic. Bill Nye committed so many fallacies in his shingle speech we aren’t going to touch any of the fallacies. We’ll just say he provided an excellent example of butterfly logic.

Mutations are the source of new information in the genome that adds complexity and causes one kind of living organism to change into another kind of living organism like bacteria gaining immunity to antibiotic or beetles that lose their wings; then natural selection selects the more fit, and we have a new species.

This logic doesn’t follow a logical path and uses words that cause confusion rather than creating understanding. The chaos makes it more difficult to point out the many fallacies.

Burden-of-Proof Fallacy

(a.k.a. Onus Probandi or Shifting the Burden of Proof)

Refusing to defend a claim while claiming those who have opposing views have the burden of proof

Examples:

Naturalism is the default. You have to prove to me that it isn’t true. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

This persuader is claiming naturalism is true. She thinks she doesn’t need to prove that claim. If naturalism were real, this persuader could prove it. Instead, she wants to shift the burden of proof.

Atheism is the default, so you have to prove to me that God exists.

This persuader assumes atheism is the default position, thinking it’s true if no one proves it false. However, he’s unwilling to try to prove his assumption that atheism is the default.

Followers of Christ never need to fear this challenge. We know God exists since we know Jesus Christ personally. He leads, teaches, and corrects us moment by moment, but the disbelievers don’t have to take our word for it since every person who seeks Him finds Him. We invite them to know Him. The disbelievers may resist that, but we’ve left them without a rational way to reject knowing Christ.

We might get a claim like “God doesn’t exist, so I refuse to know Him.” Or we might get “God doesn’t lead you, teach you, or correct you.” Whatever the claim, we can say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t accept bare assertions without proof. Can you show me a way I can test your claim?”

The fallacy is demanding an unequal burden of proof. The burden-of-proof fallacy is a form of special-pleading fallacy asserting the person making a claim has the burden of proof and the person denying the claim has no burden of proof. However, both sides of an issue have an equal burden of proof. Those who just like to argue for the sake of arguing may claim to have no positions simply to avoid defending their own positions, thus, shifting the burden of proof.

Burning-Bush Fallacy

Living life by looking back on a previous experience with Christ rather than having an ongoing relationship with Christ

Example:

I once had this wonderful experience with Christ, and I always look back to that to remind myself just how real He is.

We derive the burning-bush fallacy from the experience of Moses when God spoke to him through a burning bush. This is the fallacy of failing to realize God spoke to Moses face to face continually throughout his life.

Yesterday’s manna isn’t enough. We need Christ in each moment. Fortunately, He’s here, and every person who seeks Him finds Him.

Cabal-Message-Control Fallacy

Forming secret alliances to control all communication

Cabals can be large or small. A group of employees can form a cabal in an office for mutual gain. Some religious leaders killed John Hus, and members of the same group also attempted to kill Martin Luther with the object of controlling the message. In the USSR, Pravda did the same. Leftists use the “political correctness” tactic to control individual communications in the Americas and Europe.

The twelfth point of the Rothschild plan is “Use the Press for propaganda to control all outlets of public information while remaining in the shadows, clear of blame.” Since Rothschild came out with his plan, others have tried to do the same.

We often see attempts to control the message in news sources, social media, search engines, and education. On certain subjects, we see this control extended to bizarre extremes: dictionaries, historical markers on the highways, signs in public parks, museums, etc. The establishment press would benefit from laws restricting others from destroying their monopoly. Social media businesses like Twitter and Facebook use various tactics to control the message. These controlled messages tend toward ungodliness.

These are just what we can see. However, cabals work unseen. They do everything in secret. Those who control most of the world’s media focus on the following list:

• Promote socialism but quench free enterprise
• Promote evolutionism but quench biblical creationism
• Promote abortion but quench pro-life messages
• Promote ungodliness but quench the gospel and godliness
• Promote anti-Bible sexual practices but quench biblical marriage

Related:

evolutionism message control

Camel’s-Nose Fallacy

Continually pushing a certain agenda while denying pushing the agenda

The camel’s-nose fallacy comes from a fable in which the camel asked if he could just put his nose into the tent. By the end of the fable, the camel got fully into the tent and squeezed everyone else out. At any point in this process, the camel insists he’s not going to do what he’s going to do. Those with hidden agendas push their agendas. Often they work through an organized cabal working silently and secretly. When exposed, those pushing the agenda deny there’s any agenda. They deny they’re going to do what they’re going to do, yet they keep working toward their goal.

This problem arises if we don’t build our thoughts on the firm foundation of divine revelation. Once we remove this foundation, sanity leaves with it. There’s no line at which anyone can rationally say, “Here is the limit,” since any such limit has become arbitrary.

We could use the analogy of a line in the sand. Whoever puts the line in the sand can move the line in the sand.

We’ve witnessed various groups pushing various forms of sexual immorality using the camel’s-nose fallacy. We’ve seen this fallacy used by ungodly oppressive governments as they tighten their powerful grip. We’ve seen theologians interpret Scripture, straying further from what God wrote and finally denying any scriptural authority. If we use assumptions as our basis of thought, then we can claim anything on this basis, and no limits exist. We know that condition as insanity.

Canceling-Hypotheses Fallacy

A hypothesis created to cover up the fact that the original hypothesis failed

Example:

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur’s body preserved the tissue before it could decay. ~ Livescience.com article, Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Livescience.com was more honest than talkorigins.org. Talkorigins.org, in a wordy article, just denied the blood exists as it attacked AIG as a source. Livescience.com, on the other hand, committed the logical fallacy of canceling hypotheses. The iron would have a preservation value, but to claim blood and soft tissue could last millions of years with iron as a preservative isn’t credible.

A hypothesis should have a certain effect. In this case, scientists should find no soft tissue if the hypothesis of evolutionism were true. But scientists observe a conflict with the hypothesis. They find soft tissue. Rather than discarding the hypothesis, scientists tell a just-so story. They want to save the failed hypothesis. This new hypothesis is a rescuing hypothesis or a just-so story. They tell the just-so story to cancel the effect of the first hypothesis. A canceling-hypotheses fallacy is a form of ad hoc rescue.

Capturing-the-Naïve Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum ad Captandum or Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus)

Taking advantage of the inexperienced or unaware

Examples:

• The abortion industry has made billions of dollars deceiving young girls by calling their babies blobs of tissue.
• Sexual seduction uses the word “love” when two people are using each other.
• The pornography industry makes its billions by promising satisfaction to those who don’t know they won’t find satisfaction; but worse than that, they’ll also lose the ability to find satisfaction.
• College classrooms have become platforms for deceiving young people by convincingly presenting partial evidence, knowing most students will be ignorant of the conflicting evidence. Persuaders find it easy to deceive young people. Humans develop the ability to process thoughts logically rather than emotionally in the mid-twenties. That’s part of why colleges and universities are fairly successful in capturing the naïve.

Persuaders exploit the naivety of youth. They focus on the following: atheism, agnosticism, socialism, relativism, post-modernism, reconstructed history, and the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Genesis-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. Persuaders tell naïve students they’re more intelligent or better persons if they believe these deceptions. Persuaders also label those who don’t believe the deceptions as less intelligent or evil. They may use words like “evidence” or “science,” but the so-called “evidence” and “science” doesn’t prove the deception. Students fall in line just as the emperor fell in line in the story, The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Persuaders use the same fallacy on naïve adults through magazines, books, newspapers, TV shows, movies, or museums. The adults don’t realize persuaders are brainwashing them.

Category-Mistake Fallacy

(a.k.a. Category Error)

Assigning one or more qualities to an object, person, organization, or concept that can’t possibly belong to it

Examples:

Molecules-to-humanity evolution is a scientific fact.

Since no one can observe the story of evolution, it’s not a scientific fact. Scientists must repeatedly observe a scientific fact. No one repeatedly observes the story of evolution taking place over millions of years.

Most people are basically good.

God says there’s not a just person on the earth who does what’s right without sinning, so claims to the contrary are category mistakes.

Causal Fallacy

An error in trying to find the reason that something happened

The term “causal fallacy” is a general term applying to all fallacies that make errors in finding causes for results.

Cause-Multiplication Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Multiplication)

Including extra non-causes among the actual causes

Example:

Islamic terrorism has three causes: fundamentalist belief in the Koran, envy for the success of western civilization, and the bad behavior of Christians and Jews.

While the first two causes are well-documented, the behavior of Christians and Jews bothers Muslims because Christians and Jews aren’t Muslim.

Causal-Reductionism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Causal Oversimplification, Fallacy of the Single Cause, or Simplistic-Complexity)

Stating the cause of a certain effect as less than it is

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Thomas Hobbes reasoned that all ethics and morals are simply the result of a search for pleasure and avoidance of pain.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Hobbes may have reasoned that, but his reasoning remains an oversimplification fallacy.

Whether Sandy Sandbuilder’s summary of Hobbes’ reasoning is an accurate representation of Hobbes’ reasoning, the statement attributed to Hobbes is an oversimplification. And Hobbes also claimed to have supernatural knowledge. However, God says He has written His laws on our hearts, so we know. He also says even the ungodly know God punishes sin, and yet they sin because their act of refusing to acknowledge Christ has corrupted their minds. There’s much more to that, but God has only begun to reveal how and why it’s true.

A persuader who commits a causal-reduction fallacy claims a few of the many causes constitute the complete cause. Some causes are complex. In other words, many factors work together to cause a certain effect. For instance, if five causes work together for a certain effect, reducing the five causes to two gives us a false impression. The persuader who does that reduces the total cause of five factors to a subset of two of its components. Then the persuader claims the subset of two causes is the whole cause.

Related:

reductionism and understatement

Changing-the-Subject Fallacy

Redirecting a discussion to avoid uncomfortable facts or conclusions

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Can you give me a way to test your claim that Christ leads no one and no one has a personal relationship with Him? By the way, I don’t accept made-up stuff as proof.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Oh yeah? Prove God exists.

Sandy Sandbuilder changed the subject completely since he was asked to supply a way to check his claim, and he has no such way. His claim is just something he pulled out of the air.

Persuaders who change the topic may change the topic for various reasons:

• They may lack focus.
• They may be trying to reduce stress to maintain a personal relationship.
• They might want to avoid talking about something uncomfortable like a belief the persuader can’t defend.
• Sometimes they’re trying to distract an audience.
• Some are politicking.

Cherishing-the-Zombie Fallacy

Presenting ideas as evidence when those ideas have been previously shown to be wrong or false

Examples:

The fossil record supports evolution.

No. The fossil record refutes evolution. We see no transitional forms. Fossilized organisms show variation within the kinds but zero transitions between the kinds. Evolutionists make up stories to explain the out-of-place fossils that don’t fit the evolutionary narrative.

Natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation provide the mechanism of evolution.

No combination of these can provide a mechanism for molecules-to-humanity evolution. That story would require spontaneously formed information systems. The four supposed mechanisms can’t form information systems.

Keep in mind that many so-called refutations aren’t refutations at all. If something has been refuted, it’s disproved. If it’s disproved and still believed, that’s cherishing the zombie.

Chicken-Little-Fear Fallacy

Allowing negative and fearful thoughts to control one’s life

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m afraid that if I go out and get a job, it might not work out.

Rocky Rockbuilder: You’re a servant of Jesus, aren’t you?

Sandy: Yes.

Rocky: Don’t you know Jesus will go with you in your work if you acknowledge Him in all your ways? He’s almighty. If you depend on Him, He’ll give you wisdom and strength.

Sandy: I can’t interview for jobs. I know I’ll fall on my face.

At any moment, the enemy of our souls is speaking fear into our innermost minds. Listen to the Holy Spirit instead. The Holy Spirit will tell you the truth. He’ll give you a vision of hope whether He speaks through a fellow-Christian, the Bible, or some other means.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m so afraid. The world is spiraling out of control. It seems like everything’s falling apart. The economy, terrorists, and so many other bad things are happening. Then there’s global warming, global cooling, climate change, the hole in the ozone layer, and who knows what’s next.

Rocky Rockbuilder: It sounds like you’re in fear. Have you heard the earth is the Lord’s, every part of it?

Sandy: I can’t think about that. How can I cope with this disaster?

Fear is an enemy. Perfect love casts out fear.

The lazy person claims, “There is a lion in the road! There’s a lion in the streets!” ~ Proverbs 26:13 International Standard Version

God gives a vision of hope, yet if we reject this hope, hopelessness persists.

Chronological-Snobbery Fallacy

Blindly believing today’s technology and knowledge is better than that from the past

Example:

So there were 14 crewmen aboard a ship that was built by very, very skilled shipwrights in New England. These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding, and they couldn’t build a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been. Is that reasonable? ~ Bill Nye

Bill assumes the shipbuilding of a hundred years ago was more advanced than what existed a few thousand years before that. We know little about pre-Flood technology, but we have post-Flood artifacts of shipbuilding far superior to anything the skilled shipwrights in New England ever dreamt about.

Sometimes we don’t know if the current so-called “progress” is better than what it replaces. Sometimes, we know it’s worse. We should consider all the effects of changes. We should consider the long-term, unintended, and spiritual consequences. At the same time, there’s no doubt there have been advances in technology, and acknowledging those advances isn’t a fallacy. We might have to wait to see if the advances are good.

Circular-Cause-and-Consequence Fallacy

Claiming that a consequence of a phenomenon is its cause

Claiming the cause causes the effect and the effect causes the cause

Example:

Evolution causes many small changes that lead to big changes, which causes evolution.

This persuader claims evolution causes the small changes and the small changes cause evolution. Of course, evolutionists propose other causes for molecules-to-humanity evolution, and these causes substitute other fallacies for the circular cause-and-effect fallacy.

Exception:

We can repeatedly make the same bad decision. By repeating the bad decision, we can make it a habit and finally we can make it a personality trait. That isn’t a circular cause and consequence. That’s a downward spiral, addiction, bad habit, or confirmation bias. We cause the problem by making a bad decision, but we can stop the degeneration by making a better decision.

However, if we begin to think the degeneration causes the bad decision, we start to feel hopeless. We lose our hope and become fatalistic. In that case, we would commit a circular-cause-and-consequence fallacy. The inverse applies to good decisions and progress.

Circular-Generalization Fallacy

Saying an exception to a conclusion proves the conclusion

Saying a fact that would normally mean the conclusion was not true proves the conclusion

Examples:

The universe appears designed, but we must remember that it isn’t designed. We know it isn’t designed because everything evolved by natural processes.

Persuaders claim the assumption of naturalism proves naturalism. Persuaders assume God isn’t involved. And then they think their assumption proves God isn’t involved.

We’re observing preserved dinosaur blood that’s millions of years old. Something we don’t understand must be preserving the blood.

That’s a circular-generalization fallacy to avoid challenging the millions-of-years concept. The millions-of-years concept is an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. The circular generalization is a smokescreen fallacy to hide the axiomatic-thinking fallacy.

The Big Bang Theory was confirmed by the discovery of dark matter. While we can’t sense dark matter, we know it exists, and we know a lot about its properties. If dark matter doesn’t exist, something else exists that we can use to save the Big Bang Theory. We know that because the observations and the Big Bang Theory require it. Otherwise, our math wouldn’t work if it were any different from what we’ve determined.

That’s precisely the same logic scientists used to support the theory about so-called “ethers” moving the sun around the earth. Scientists defended that theory until the central earth theory was thrown out.

Circular-Reasoning Fallacy

(a.k.a. Paradoxical Thinking, Circle in Proving, Circular Logic, Circular Argument, Petitio Principii, Circulus in Demonstrando, Circulus in Probando, or Meatpoison)

Reasoning where the starting point of the reasoning is the same as the end of the reasoning

In circular-reasoning fallacies, the premise depends on the conclusion, and the conclusion depends on the premise. Circular reasoning comes in many flavors, but they all bear this common characteristic.

Examples:

Molecules-to-humanity evolution explains all the evidence found regarding the diversity of life on earth. However, creationism explains none of it. Instead, creationism replaces an explanation with “God did it,” a decidedly non-explanation. ~ website about logical fallacies

This comment presupposes what it’s trying to prove. It’s pure circular reasoning. If this persuader could prove Almighty God didn’t create the universe, it would make perfect sense to say “God did it is a decidedly non-explanation.” Instead, he assumes God didn’t create the universe. However, the persuader who wrote the website is trying to prove God didn’t create the universe, so it’s circular reasoning since he’s assuming what he’s trying to prove. This atheist is using circular reasoning and then writing about logic. That’s typical of ungodly websites (and many exist) that presume to teach logic when they have no way to reason using sound logic. Sound logic needs a true premise. Ungodly thinkers have no way to get a true premise.

This persuader also commits a straw-man argument. The scientific evidence points to Creation and God. The atheists push hard to control the message so no one finds out about that. We can see the special pleading by comparing evolution and creationism. It’s either evolutionism and creationism, or else it’s evolution and Creation.

The earth is old because the geological strata are old. The geological strata are old because the fossils are old. Fossils are old because the earth is old. Therefore, many lines of evidence show us the certainty that the earth is old.

This persuader begins by concluding the earth is old and ends by concluding the earth is old. He argues in a circle.

Circular-reasoning fallacies are fallacies because they give the illusion of proof when no proof exists. Circular-reasoning fallacies are smokescreens to hide the root axiomatic-thinking fallacy. A persuader asserts X as an axiom (bare claim). The persuader wants to make us think she proved X. She commits a circular-reasoning fallacy like this: “X proves Y; Y proves Z; Z proves X.” No matter how many steps the persuader takes before returning to X, it’s the same as saying, “X proves X.”

Since no conclusion of sound logic can contain any information not found in the premises, some thinkers become confused and think any sound logic is a circular-reasoning fallacy. For instance, the following two examples aren’t circular-reasoning fallacies:

I know God exists because I have an ongoing relationship with Christ who is constantly revealing Himself and His will to me.

I know my car exists because I’m looking at it and driving it right now.

However, in the sense of truth, we can only know the first statement—we can’t know the second statement about my car. The first statement depends on God’s ability to reveal, to impart faith, and to give discernment between His faith and human make-believe. We can’t know the second statement absolutely since it depends on the reliability of the senses and the human mind. We can know the second statement pragmatically. As we acknowledge God, He tells us our senses are fairly accurate. He tells us He created a tangible reality. That way, we can have great confidence even though our senses and reasoning aren’t totally reliable.

Circular-Reference Fallacy

Circular reasoning accomplished in one step or many steps

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Well it’s obvious. All the scientific evidence points to evolution.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Which scientific evidence specifically?

Sandy: Well, the fossil evidence, for one thing.

Rocky: Did you personally examine the geologic column and the fossils or did you just read about it or hear about it from someone else?

Sandy: I learned it in college.

Rocky: So you’re just taking the word of your professors and the people who wrote the books. But how do you know their interpretation of the observations is accurate. And how do you know they aren’t giving you selective information and leaving out information that works against their case?

Sandy: Because they’re the trusted experts of science.

Rocky: Other than blind faith in the textbooks and the professors, do you have any other reason for believing them?

Sandy: Because of the scientific evidence.

Now, we’ve made the complete circle. It’s because of the scientific evidence, and we can verify that this scientific evidence isn’t a fabrication because of the scientific evidence.

The persuader uses a conclusion as a premise. Then the persuader uses the conclusion as a premise to prove the conclusion. A persuader states a series of logical arguments. One argument depends on another until the final argument supplies the premise of the first argument. Of course, most people don’t follow their reasoning more than a few arguments deep. We can feel like the circular reference is an infinite regression, but then it secretly loops back into itself.

Some circular references use many steps, and using many steps helps hide circular reasoning. As a result, multi-step circular reasoning can be difficult to detect. In discussions with ungodly thinkers, they’ll often defend circular reasoning, infinite regression, and axiomatic-thinking fallacies. They’ll claim these are sound ways of reasoning. They will usually base their defense on an axiomatic-thinking fallacy they may hide by using one or more smokescreen fallacies.

Circumstantial-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ad Hominem Circumstantiae, Appeal to Motive, Appeal to Conflict of Interest, Argument from Motives, Questioning Motives, or Appeal to Vested Interest)

Believing, implying, or saying something is untrue because of some circumstance like personal bias, personal gain, or self-serving interests of the person making the claim

Examples:

What he said can’t be true because the news media accused him of many things without any proof.

All Ken Ham’s arguments for Creation can be dismissed simply because he receives a salary from Answers in Genesis, so he would have to maintain this personal bias.

When listening to arguments, it’s important to look for a true premise regardless of who’s making the argument. The circumstantial-ad-hominem fallacy directs focus away from the argument itself and onto a person. Of course, we would be suspicious of unsupported assertions regardless of who asserted them. We’d be suspicious simply because they’re unsupported. Sometimes a circumstance makes an assertion less credible.

The ungodly “news” sources have a circumstance of being ungodly. Ungodly thinkers have a circumstance of being ungodly thinkers. A theologian with a certain dogmatic theology has the circumstance of having this dogmatic theology. And yet, we need proof regardless of circumstances. We can evaluate the proof regardless of circumstances.

For instance, an ungodly thinker who refused to acknowledge God may claim we who follow Christ aren’t experiencing what we’re experiencing. We should ask the ungodly thinker to give us a checkable way to verify her claim. We should demand a true premise and reject assumptions and stories. Of course, she can’t give us a rational way to check her claim.

 

Claiming-the-Moral-High-Ground Fallacy

(a.k.a. Holding the Moral High Ground, Claiming the Intellectual High Ground, or Claiming the High Ground)

Implying that moral, ethical, or intellectual superiority as proof of a conclusion

Persuaders in politics, science, religion, and anywhere there’s disagreement may commit the fallacy of claiming the moral high ground as a way to get their way or to silence all other voices. Persuaders usually claim the moral high ground by innuendo, often in a question-begging epithet.

Example:

When they go low, we go high.

That sounds good, but when stated publically, it’s an example of going low. It claims the moral high ground while insinuating that someone else is going low, so it’s an attack at the same low level as name-calling or cursing.

We don’t confuse this fallacy with taking the high road. Taking the high road is doing what’s right even if others are doing wrong, so taking the high road isn’t a fallacy, but claiming the moral high ground is a fallacy.

Claiming-the-Neutral-Position Fallacy

(a.k.a. Claiming the Default Position)

Claiming that one’s own position is the default position

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Secularism merely follows the Constitution, which commands freedom from religion.

Rocky Rockbuilder: First, the Constitution doesn’t say that. Second, you’re recommending the religion of ungodliness as the State-established religion. You’ve called it a non-religion so you could establish it as the State religion, which does violate the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Persuaders who claim the neutral position argue against whatever conflicts with their own positions. At the same time, they may refuse to answer any questions since they claim there’s no reason to defend the neutral, default position. It’s common for these persuaders to avoid revealing their positions, but if these persuaders do reveal their positions, they still claim their positions are neutral positions or default positions that don’t require defending. In other words, the persuader claims the persuader’s own position is a reality unless it’s proved false. That’s an argument-from-ignorance fallacy.

First, a persuader claims to have no position to defend.

I don’t have a position. I’m going to ask you some questions to see if you’re rational in holding your position.

You don’t understand the definition of “atheist.” Atheists simply don’t believe. We haven’t seen any evidence yet. We’re perfectly open-minded. Show me your evidence and see if you can convince me. I don’t have to show you any evidence since I don’t have a position.

If the persuader continues to ask questions, it’s a search for something the other person doesn’t know. If the persuader continues to ask for proof, no evidence in the world would ever convince this persuader. In either case, it’s a one-sided mind game that moves into an argument-from-ignorance fallacy. Part of what makes this fun for ungodly persuaders is the fact that most Christians don’t want to admit they know Jesus Christ. When Christians try to argue without attributing all knowledge to Christ, they have no firm foundation. They will lose this mind game, and the ungodly persuader will win.

If I can ask a question you can’t answer, you’re wrong and I’m right. I’m neutral. I’m just looking for truth.

If you can’t prove your case according to my rules of proof and my satisfaction, you’re wrong and I’m right. I’m neutral. I’m just looking for truth.

The statement isn’t true. A person’s ability to answer a question or to prove the truth doesn’t affect reality in the slightest. In the case of the atheist, when we tell them they can know Christ so they can prove Christ to themselves by seeking Him and finding Him, we’re saying Christ is the evidence. Just find Him and know Him. When they refuse to look at this evidence, they expose the fact that their position isn’t neutral at all.

Secularism is just a neutral position. If there’s a God, prove it. You have the burden of proof, so I don’t have to prove anything. Believing in God makes no sense since there’s no proof, and science disproves God and the Bible. I’m neutral.

Christianity is just a neutral position. If there’s no God, prove it. You have the burden of proof, so I don’t have to prove anything. Believing in God is the only choice that makes sense since there’s no proof against Him. Science proves God and disproves atheism. I’m neutral.

Claiming the neutral position is one of the ways of demanding an unequal burden of proof. These persuaders demand you show absolute evidence of what you believe, but the persuaders claim to have no belief in anything. And yet these persuaders’ attitudes make their positions plain. It’s just a mind-game. Often, the persuader who’s asking for evidence will also refuse to look at the evidence. In our example, the evidence of Christ is found by seeking Christ in sincerity, respect, and submission, but it’s common for dogmatically ungodly people to refuse to look at this evidence. The evidence of disbelief in God is another matter entirely since disbelievers can’t prove a false position—they can only create the illusion of proof.

Claim-of-Unknowables Fallacy

A belief, implication, or claim something or someone is universally unknowable

Claims of unknowables are universal negatives, so it’s irrational to make such a claim unless God reveals it. God knows everything and can’t lie, so only God can proclaim a universal negative. For instance, He says there isn’t a just person on earth who doesn’t sin and who only does righteousness. As another example, scientific observation doesn’t work to know moral truth, spiritual truth, or historical truth, yet we can know these by revelation.

Examples:

The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the universe and our own existence is one that you can’t prove or disprove. And that gets into this expression “agnostic.” You can’t know. I’ll grant you that. ~ Bill Nye

Theorem: It’s utterly impossible to validate the authenticity of any divine revelation. Proof of the theorem (This is for the monotheistic God. Proof for the case of other gods is similar) Suppose God is trying to send a message. How would the recipient determine the message is from God? Let’s suppose the message is sent by X, so the task is to determine whether X is God. Lemma 1 dictates the only method to validate the message’s authenticity is by checking the message’s content. In this case, it’s sufficient to attribute the message to God regardless of the true identity of the sender. Suppose the content of the message is checked. How would one determine whether it’s from God? If it lies in the realm of “God would/wouldn’t say such a thing”, it’s compared to a separate list. In this case, since there is already a list on the receiver’s end, the revelation is no longer “divine” (As in someone else has revealed it to the receiver already). ~ copied from the atheist website, Rationalwiki

Both claims give the illusion of rational thought. And yet, neither is rational. Both are based on axiomatic-thinking fallacies. Both statements contain outright lies:

You can’t know.

Lemma 1 dictates the only method to validate the message’s authenticity is by checking the message’s content.

Bill claims you can’t know, but you can know. Lemma 1 doesn’t prove God isn’t well able to validate His messages any way He chooses. Nor does it prove the only way we can validate God’s message is by checking the message’s content.

Cliché-Thinking Fallacy

(a.k.a. Thought-Terminating Cliché)

Using a common phrase or folk wisdom as proof

Common phrases can sound real because they’re familiar. However, they aren’t proof and can’t provide certainty.

Examples:

Evolution is science.

A persuader makes this statement to end the discussion. The statement is false since we can’t observe or test molecules-to-humanity evolution scientifically. Rather, the concept of evolutionism is an intricate story. The persuader designed this thought-terminating cliché to create a false impression and end all questioning of the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. No thinking allowed.

God is dead.

This persuader wanted this clever statement to end all discussion and thought. Those of us who personally know the Creator God also know the atheist’s statement is a lie. However, the persuader uses this cliché to influence some people into believing the lie.

Thought-terminating cliché is one of the many smokescreens persuaders use to keep anyone from seeing they base their reasoning on made-up stuff. Persuaders who commit the logical fallacy of thought-terminating cliché repeat a commonly used phrase or some folk wisdom and pretend the cliché proves a conclusion. A persuader will often use a thought-terminating cliché with a summary dismissal to cut off the discussion. Cliché thinking can fool us if we think the cliché is an explanation.

A thought-terminating-cliché fallacy must be misleading in some way. Trite sayings or common sayings aren’t necessarily misleading.

Making a statement based on a true premise and valid form should answer the topic and end the discussion by supplying truth. A true premise and valid deductive form don’t constitute cliché thinking even if they end discussion. Ungodly thinkers don’t want truth or respect truth, however. A persuader only commits the thought-terminating-cliché fallacy when the persuader ends discussion irrationally.

Thought-terminating clichés are statements that don’t come from the Holy Spirit. God speaks through those who hear His voice and who respond to Him in submission.

A dedicated and dogmatic ungodly thinker will consider the following to be thought-terminating clichés when they’re not:

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Job 1:21

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! (opposing same-sex marriage)

That isn’t biblical.

God bless you.

God works in mysterious ways.

God never gives you more suffering than you can bear.

Only God can judge.

God has a plan.

Although this list once appeared on the infamous Wikipedia as examples of thought-terminating clichés, each one has deep spiritual meaning that flows from divine revelation. Each requires continued discussion to discover the depth of the foundation. If an ungodly thinker wants truth, he’ll find each of these statements is the beginning of a thoughtful conversation.

Clustering-Illusion Fallacy

Assuming the clustering of events that naturally takes place in a random process aren’t random events

Examples:

• Fans think it’s strange that several rising music stars died at 27 years old. ~ The Forever 27 Club
• Comparing certain similarities between President Lincoln and President Kennedy and implying something mysterious links them together.

Sometimes, Christians make the mistake of thinking clustering illusions are signs from God, that God is telling them they should make a certain choice. When God is going to reveal His will to us and we’re open to His leading, He’ll make His will plain to us. God speaks through Scripture about how He reveals His will. Sometimes, God does indeed use a series of events to get our attention, but He’ll usually also speak to us in other ways to make the message clear.

The clustering-illusion fallacy is a statistical fallacy, and usually, the sample size is too small or non-representative. We can use statistics as suggestions, but we can never get absolute answers through statistics. No statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which isn’t concrete or definitive. However, we can use statistics within its limits. Here’s the problem with clustering illusions. They make statistics deceptive rather than useful.

Cogency Fallacy

Believing that persuasiveness equals truth

Persuasiveness isn’t proof. A persuasive person may be dead wrong and dangerous.

Complex-Hypothesis Fallacy

(a.k.a. Extravagant-Hypothesis Fallacy)

Choosing one explanation that depends on more assumptions over another explanation that depends on fewer assumptions

Examples:

• The big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity explanation is laden with many assumptions, and it falls apart without them. Unfortunately, many who embrace this explanation and give it special privilege over other explanations don’t know about these assumptions. On the other hand, God reveals the Creation and the Flood as facts, so we don’t need assumptions as long as we don’t go beyond what God has revealed. What God reveals doesn’t conflict with anything observed or tested scientifically.

An atheist tried to prove he could self-generate true premises without either divine revelation or observation. His ploy was to state a piece of logic that’s true because of the rules of logic, what some call a tautology. He said, “God either exists or doesn’t exist.” If the rules of logic are real, this statement is true, but it can’t lead to any knowledge. It can’t even prove the rules of logic are real. All the atheist did was parrot a phrase that proves nothing. God reveals the rules of logic, so we know this statement is true. The atheist can only assume the rules of logic are real. This was all a game to confuse the issue.

Related:

confusing-pseudo-truth-with-truth fallacy

Composition Fallacy

(a.k.a. Exception Fallacy, Categorical Error, Part-to-Whole Fallacy or Category Error)

Confusing properties of the parts with properties of the whole

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: When I sin, it’s fun, so I’m going to have fun sinning all my life.

Rocky Rockbuilder: The fleshly nature does love to sin; that’s true. However, the wages of sin is death, and this death happens far sooner than physical death. Sin will take you farther than you wanted to go, keep you there longer than you wanted to stay, and cost you more than you ever wanted to pay.

Sandy Sandbuilder, whether Christian or not, is applying properties of the moment to the entire future. Sandy is committing the fallacy of composition.

Sandy Sandbuilder: We can observe minor changes from generation to generation in living organisms. Therefore, those minor changes will build up over time to the point where a single cell eventually changes into more complex living organisms and those increasingly complex organisms become a human being.

Rocky Rockbuilder: In the case you mentioned, small changes don’t add up to huge changes. We can’t find examples of one kind of living organism turning into another kind of living organism. None exist in either living organisms or fossils, though many fake-examples exist. We would see millions of transitional forms between the fossils we now see. We would see so many they wouldn’t show any distinction between kinds of animals like dogs and cats. We would have millions of tiny variations but no distinct kinds of animals. However, such evidence is missing which should make even the staunchest evolutionist wonder.

Not only that, but there’s no mechanism to create the progressive complexity you describe. The changes we observe fall into two categories. We observe epigenetic changes. These switches control the expression of already-existing information systems. We also see losses in information. We see duplication of already-existing information. We see distortion of information. Some of the distorted information is slight enough that it doesn’t immediately kill the organism, but if degradation continues, extinction occurs. Something would have to add new information systems to cells to get the kind of evolutionistic changes you suggest. Something would have to do that. Molecules-to-humanity evolution couldn’t even make the smallest step without adding a new information system. This mechanism wouldn’t just add new coded information. No one has ever seen new coded information popping into existence spontaneously. This mechanism would design a coded information system for each change. We don’t see any such mechanism. We can’t imagine a mechanism that could do it.

You may accuse me of appealing to lack of imagination. I’m not. I’m pointing out that what we see scientifically points to Creation rather than evolution, and it doesn’t make sense to use the fallacy of composition as supposed “proof” for molecules-to-humanity evolution. Those who follow Christ know, by divine revelation, that God created the heavens, earth, seas, and everything in them in six days. God speaks. He reveals the fact of Creation to us. Whenever God speaks, what He says is a fact.

Sandy Sandbuilder was using the fallacy of composition to try to convince Rocky. Good thing Rocky understood what Sandy was doing. He only had to realize Sandy was committing the fallacy of composition as deceptive “proof.” In the composition fallacy, the persuader assumes the properties of the parts are the properties of the whole.

Using a spectroscope, we observe various elements in supernovas. Therefore, all elements formed in supernovas. Therefore, the earth formed this way.

This scientist observed part of the hypothesis. Then the scientist applied this part to the whole hypothesis and drew this irrational conclusion.

Commutation-of-Conditionals Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of the Consequent, Converting a Conditional, or Switching the Antecedent and the Consequent)

When the truth of one thing proves another thing, thinking the inverse must also be true

Invalid Form:

If A means B is true, then B means A is true.

Just because A proves B, that doesn’t mean B proves A.

Examples:

All sin has consequences. Rocky appears to be going through some financial trouble. He must have sinned.

This persuader is committing the commutation-of-conditionals fallacy, not an uncommon mistake among Christians.

If someone passes a college-level science class, this person likely has some knowledge of science. Therefore, if someone has some knowledge of science, this person must have passed a college-level science class.

It’s easy to gain knowledge of science without taking a college-level science class.

Conceptual Fallacy

Misuse of concepts

A persuader who commits a conceptual fallacy misuses concepts in some way. The term “conceptual fallacy” is a general term. It covers every form of conceptual fallacy. However, we can divide conceptual fallacies into two types:

Types of Conceptual Fallacies:

• confusing a concept with something real
• confusing something real with a concept

Concepts are impressions, and impressions can deceive us. Scientific theories and models are concepts. Ideas are concepts. Theologies are concepts.

Reality is what exists. Jesus Christ is real as is the Holy Spirit. The physical universe has real existence. Faith and grace are real.

Confirmation-Bias Fallacy

A form of circular reasoning in which a worldview filters experience or observation to create a false impression the experience or observation supports the worldview

Examples:

I have made 30+ posts on Ian Juby videos with varied responses to his over-the-top claims. Over and over have I shown Juby is wrong. ~ ungodly thinker

This person has indeed made many postings, but examining the posts of this person reveals nothing except for a rich place to harvest examples of irrational thinking. However, in his mind, every time he posts a new fallacy, this fallacy becomes a confirmation of his intelligence and his worldview.

All the scientific evidence supports evolution.

What if the person who made this statement would be willing to examine each piece of this so-called evolution-supporting evidence? He would find each piece of so-called evidence depends on made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational thinking, or outright lies. That would shake his inner world. However, the human mind is deceitful and desperately wicked to the point that no one can trust his or her own mind or any other human mind. So, the mind of someone who is truly convinced of a lie won’t allow examination. Those people live in a stupor because of their worldviews. Their worldviews are fake realities that seem real. They see everything as evidence in favor of the fake-reality. The good news is the Holy Spirit works to overcome the paradigms and confirmation bias in those who follow Christ. He’ll deliver us all from our own deceptions if we continue to listen to His voice and respond in submission. Of course, that means God will shake all our pet theories and theologies until we have a solid foundation that nothing can shake. Hint: all human thought is shakable. Only God is unshakable.

Confabulation Fallacy

Inaccurate memories of the past

The confabulation fallacy is a lie about the distant past, but it’s not purposeful; rather, our minds play tricks. Our past attitudes seem more like our present attitudes than they actually were. Our imagination displays false movies that we think we remember, and these false movies seem like they happened in the way our imaginations displayed them. We add suggestions from others, our inner emotions, and our rationalizations to memories. We should never confuse what we remember with what actually happened.

Example:

The older I get, the better I was.

In our memories of ourselves, we tend to think we were more kind, rational, and effective than we really were. Listen to any verbal battle. Then listen to one who was in the battle afterward. People often think their own behavior was much better than it was. People often think the behaviors of others were much worse than they were.

Confusing-Abstraction-with-Reality Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming an abstract idea about reality is reality itself

Example:

I want you to consider what that means. It means that Mr. Ham’s word, or his interpretation of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find, literally, in your back yard in Kentucky. ~ Bill Nye

Bill said he was finding and observing the big bang story and the molecules to humanity story in the back yards of Kentucky. These stories are fabrications that scientists have built on the abstractions of certain scientific observations, but Bill has confused them with reality.

We abstract a part of reality every time we analyze anything, but we might forget that an abstraction is just an abstraction, or we might begin to confuse the abstraction with reality itself.

Related:

hypostatization fallacy

Confusing-Advantage-for-Mechanism Fallacy

Stating an advantage but claiming to have stated the mechanism

Explaining something is an advantage isn’t the same as seeing causes it to happen. A persuader who confuses mechanism with advantage may also confuse an explanation with proof.

Examples:

• Bill Nye committed both fallacies with his topminnow story at the 1:16:38 point during the Nye-Ham debate.
• Jeremy England committed both fallacies with his increasing entropy equals abiogenesis story.

Nye-Ham Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

England: http://creation.com/physicist-breakthrough-origin-of-life

Confusing-Contradiction-with-Contrariety Fallacy

Believing, implying, or saying a contrariety is a contradiction

“Faith without works is dead,” but “we reckon a man to be justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”

We have no contradiction here, but a contrariety. A contrariety seems, on the surface, to make no sense. Before we have all the facts and when we lack knowledge or understanding, we may think something is a contradiction when it isn’t. Later, we find faith gives access to grace, and grace does the works. Righteous works aren’t by human effort but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the gift of righteousness.

Confusing-Explanation-with-Proof Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming an explanation is proof

We challenge you; tell us why the universe is accelerating. Tell us why these mothers were getting sick. And we found an explanation for it. ~ Bill Nye

Bill says we found an explanation, but we don’t find explanations. People make up explanations. They make up stories they call “explanations.”

We may observe something and explain what we’re observing. Those are factual explanations as opposed to made-up story explanations. However, as soon as we go beyond the observations, we explain a vision out of our own minds and tell a made-up story explanation.

No one proved the universe is accelerating. Some people claim it’s accelerating. They’re trying to explain some observations, so they made up a story and called it an explanation. The explanation consists of made-up stuff that goes beyond the observations. We don’t know if the universe is accelerating. It could be. Ungodly thinkers told the story of inflation first. Then they told the story of accelerated inflation. Finally, they told the story of dark matter and dark energy to find a way the universe could be accelerating. However, people made up stories for all these explanations. No creative explanation can prove anything.

Examples:

The Greeks explained how the sun moved across the sky. Using theoretical science, they began with some presuppositions and interpreted the observations using those presuppositions. They concluded that a chariot carries the sun across the sky. Theoretical scientists make speculative explanations and present them as proof.

A magician explains what he’s doing, and we call this explanation the magician’s patter. The explanation is a misdirection that makes you think magic is happening. It’s just an explanation to create an illusion, and a skilled magician can make you think the explanation proves magic happened.

Other explanations simply communicate the nature of reality. When we get one of those furniture kits, the assembly instruction sheet is an explanation of this type. The assembly instructions don’t try to explain away some of the parts in the kit. They explain how we put the furniture together without ruining it.

Neither made-up story explanations nor factual explanations are proof, but we can confuse either made-up story explanations or factual explanations with proof. In the quote above, Bill Nye confused a made-up story explanation with proof. In the context of his total statement, he used a made-up story explanation about the universe accelerating as proof for a story about a big bang causing the universe. The explanation that Bill used is also a rescuing-hypothesis fallacy. So Bill is confusing an explanation with proof.

Often, one person explains a conclusion or event, but the other person interprets the explanation as a premise (proof) for the conclusion. That can have two different effects. Here’s one possible unhappy effect. We might hear someone explain a concept and then think the explanation is proof. We might even think the concept is real rather than just a concept. Of course, an explanation of facts sounds real since the explanation always fits the facts to some extent. However, we can’t rationally use concepts or explanations of concepts as proof of anything. We can verify those parts of the explanation that fit the facts, but we can’t verify the parts of the explanation that go beyond the facts.

Rocky: Evolutionism is a story. It goes beyond what we can see. All made-up stories start with some real things. Every fairytale is like that. The trick is to blur the line between reality and make-believe.

Sandy: What’s made up about it?

Rocky: Every part that we can’t repeatedly observe. For instance, give me a way to repeatedly observe a microscopic organism gradually changing over millions of years until it becomes every form of living organism that now exists.

Sandy: We can trace it through the fossil record. We can trace it through genetics. They do experiments on bacteria. I mean you name it they’ve got it.

Rocky: You can make up stories about fossils and about what scientists see in genetics and bacteria. If you can’t tell the difference between an observation and a story that goes beyond the observation, then you have lost touch with reality.

Explanations can fight communication another way. We may explain something, and someone with a debate mindset thinks we were trying to prove something. The debater says the explanation doesn’t prove anything. Of course, it doesn’t prove anything. We didn’t mean it to prove anything. People in the debate mindset struggle with having normal conversations. Not everything is proof in normal conversation.

Explanations aren’t fallacies in themselves. They’re fallacies when someone uses them as proof since an explanation can’t prove the explanation is true. Persuaders may speculate beyond their experience or observation and call their speculations “explanations” as if they were explaining real experiences or observations. That’s a fallacy since it deceives us. The following conversation illustrates the difference between explanation and evidence:

Christian: I know Jesus Christ. He leads me and teaches me moment by moment.

Secularist: That isn’t proof.

Christian: I didn’t mean my statement as proof to you. It’s proof to me. It was an explanation. If you want proof, you’ll have to look at the evidence.

Secularist: What evidence?

Christian: You can have evidence. Just ask Jesus Christ to forgive you, rule over you, and take away your sinful nature, and then spend persistent time in respectful prayer to Christ. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you, to lead you, correct you, and purify your mind. Read the Bible while asking Christ to reveal His secrets to you through what you’re reading. When Christ shows you that you’re wrong about something, acknowledge His leading. Acknowledge that Christ showed you it’s wrong. When Christ urges you to do something good, acknowledge and obey Him. Acknowledge Him in all your ways, and He’ll direct your paths. Every person who seeks Him finds Him. If you’re sincere and persistent, you can’t fail. You’ll become increasingly aware of His presence, and Christ revealing Himself to you will be the proof.

The Christian is explaining an experience. It’s not a guess or speculation. Ungodly thinkers who despise the light will refuse to look at this evidence because they love their sins. They know Jesus Christ would lead them out of their sinful life, and they don’t want that.

On the other hand, naturalists, when confronted with a miracle or an experience of a Christian, will say, “We have a natural explanation for that.” The naturalist implies making up a speculative explanation is proof against the miracle or experience. The naturalist is confusing an explanation with proof. The naturalist made up a story as an explanation to explain away the miracle. No one proved the naturalist’s made-up story explanation. Since naturalistic explanations are just made-up stories, naturalists can’t rationally use them as proof of naturalism.

If you hear someone talk about an explanation for an observation, don’t let them deceive you. Explanations usually line up with the observations because someone made them up as explanations of the observation. Lining up with observations doesn’t prove the explanations true. If the explanations go beyond experience or observation, they’re just stories. Someone may make up a story that doesn’t conflict with reality. However, that doesn’t make the story part of reality. It’s just a story that goes beyond what we can know.

Many gossips have falsely accused innocent victims because they observed something and filled in the blanks to make an interesting story. The story fits what the gossip observed, but the gossip just added some spice to it. Fitting the observation didn’t make the gossip’s story true.

Confusing-“If”-with-“If-and-Only-If” Fallacy

Changing an “if” to mean “if and only if’ during reasoning. Changing an “if and only if” to mean “if” during reasoning

Invalid Form:

If X, then Y. Not-X. Therefore, not-Y.

We don’t know Y is not true from this logic.

Example:

If God would give me anything I asked for when I pray, then God exists. I tried praying and didn’t get what I prayed for. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

It wouldn’t be true to say, “God exists if and only if He gives me anything I ask for.” And yet that’s what the persuader implies. The persuader uses the word “if” as though it were “if and only if.” This way, the persuader creates a smokescreen fallacy. The persuader had no rational basis for the false claim: “God doesn’t exist.”

Confusing-a-Model-with-Reality Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming a model of some part of reality is actual reality

Example:

The Big Bang is confirmed science. We modeled the Big Bang using a balloon and confetti, and it confirms the Big Bang happened.

Some thinkers forget the model is only a model and not reality itself. The model seduces them. Models are abstractions, and they aren’t part of reality even if they follow the known facts exactly. That doesn’t mean models can’t help us to understand concepts. It doesn’t mean models can’t be predictive tools like weather models are used to predict the weather with a degree of accuracy.

Related:

generalizing-from-a-hypostatization and conceptual fallacy

Confusing-a-Necessary-Condition-with-a-Sufficient-Condition Fallacy

Believing that a necessary condition for an event is sufficient to cause the event

Believing that a necessary condition for an event is sufficient to prove the event or condition happened

Form:

X would be necessary for Z. Therefore, X’s existence is a sufficient cause to assure that Z happened.

Though X is necessary for Z, it isn’t sufficient to assure Z.

The fallacy of confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition comes up often when trying to apply the scientific method to stories about origins. The persuader reasons that a certain condition would have to exist if a certain historical event took place. Then the persuader falsely thinks the existence of the condition is “proof” for the event. It’s not proof though. The existence of the condition doesn’t necessarily result in the event taking place. On the other hand, the absence of the condition should cause us to question whether the historical event took place.

Example:

If a big bang happened, we would necessarily have a certain form of background radiation. We have background radiation. That is sufficient to assure a big bang happened.

If the background radiation had matched what the model predicted, which it didn’t, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to claim a big bang happened. In this example, the background radiation isn’t even what the model predicted. The persuader predicted that scientists should observe a particular background radiation in the universe if a big bang happened. However, scientists didn’t observe that particular background radiation in the universe, so that would suggest a big bang didn’t happen. Rather than lose the big bang story, scientists made-up a just-so story about dark energy and dark matter.

Confusing-Ontology-with-Epistemology Fallacy

Confusing reality with worldview

Confusing reality with concept

Persuaders who commit this fallacy confuse being with knowing about being. They confuse what exists with ideas about what exists. They confuse ontology with epistemology.

Ontology studies purely objective empirical knowledge. It studies raw perceptions. It studies reality. Epistemology studies ideas or beliefs about reality.

Given the power of worldviews to filter perceptions, it’s questionable that raw perception is possible. We can only bypass this human limitation one way, by divine intervention known as revelation. Even then, revelation is a stepwise process. God reveals reality to us progressively as He renews the human mind from glory to glory. He teaches, corrects, and purifies the willing human mind moment by moment. However, until He completes His work, we can’t always discern between what comes from God and what comes from sources other than God. Sometimes, we have to seek God for a while before we get the answer.

Related:

intensional fallacy, intensional context, hooded-man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and ontic fallacy

Confusing-Rationalized-Faith-with-God’s-Faith Fallacy

Thinking make-believe faith is the same as real faith

Examples:

I just had to decide what I was going to believe, atheism, Hinduism, Islam, or biblical Christianity. I reasoned within myself and came up with biblical Christianity as the way to go. So, I put my faith in the Bible.

The example is a rationalized make-believe faith. Real faith is supernatural certainty that comes from listening to God’s voice. This real faith is belief, trust, and obedience. It’s knowing what God says is true, and God’s faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by God’s utterance. This faith is substance as opposed to concept, and it’s absolutely certain evidence. If we have real faith, it’s “the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.” We must admit some Christians do boast of their faith. They shouldn’t. They have nothing they haven’t received from God, and real faith won’t make us boast.

Rationalized faith is a make-believe faith. Through mental exercise, we may try to stir up belief but not based on God’s utterance. That’s not real faith. We receive God’s faith based on God’s utterance. If we only have rationalized faith, we have no spiritual power. If we have real faith, we have spiritual power.

Confusing-Pseudo-Truth-with-Truth Fallacy

(a.k.a. Confusing Mathematical Truth with Truth, Confusing Logical Truths with Truth, Confusing what is True by Definition with Truth, Confusing Personal Truth with Truth, Confusing Analytical Truth with Truth, or Confusing Tautologies with Truth)

Thinking something called truth is actual truth just because it’s called truth

Types of Pseudo-Truth

• Semantic Truth
• Mathematical
• Logical Truths
• what is True
• Personal Truth
• Tautologies
• Analytic Truth

Examples:

The human mind can manufacture truth without the benefit of either divine revelation or observation. Let me show you how I, as an atheist, can do this. I’ll just make the following true statement: God either exists or He doesn’t. That statement is true. I just manufactured truth without divine revelation or observation.

The statement doesn’t say anything. What can we do with it? What a life this person would lead. He would say, “My car either exists or doesn’t exist.” “I either live at my address or I don’t.” “I either am a computer programmer or I’m not.”

However, he doesn’t limit himself. He uses the irrational claim above to justify making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true. From that made-up stuff, he concluded God doesn’t reveal Himself to anyone. He concluded socialism is the way society should be run. He concluded all Christians should be rounded up and exterminated. He concluded the stories of evolutionism are true. He also concluded his claim, the one we just quoted, is rational. And, based on the made-up stuff by which he concluded his claim is rational, he also concluded he can make up stuff and the made-up stuff is true.

Of course I can think rationally without a premise I’ve proved true. My mind can determine the truth without divine revelation or observation. Watch me make a true statement without either of those. My wife is my wife. That’s true, isn’t it? Here’s another one. I am who I am. I can create mathematical truth tables. That’s all about truth. Also, if I define science to mean the scientific method, whatever we learn using the scientific method, and the current opinion of the scientific establishment. Given this definition of science, the stories of evolutionism are science. Here’s another one. All bachelors are unmarried.

Of the statements the ungodly thinker called “true,” not one is the truth. Some are rhetoric that doesn’t say anything. What is true by definition doesn’t prove anything since definitions don’t prove anything. Definitions just make sure we know what someone means when that person uses a certain word.

My personal truth is I live my life free from the restrictions of any God since my personal truth eliminates God.

In my personal truth, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Those are just constructs of society.

In my reality, I’m a unicorn living on the planet Elmo just past the North Star.

Confusing-Theory-with-Reality Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming a theory is part of reality

In the fallacy of confusing a theory with reality, a persuader creates and polishes a theory and then forgets it’s just a story. That person treats the theory as if it were real.

Examples:

The Theory of Evolution isn’t a concept. It’s a fact.

If you deny the age of the earth [billions of years], you deny reality.

Related:

generalizing from a hypostatization

Confusing-Worldview-with-Reality Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming a worldview is reality itself

The fallacy of confusing worldview with reality makes it hard to discern between what’s known and what’s coming from the worldview. Each person constructs a worldview, a fake reality in the mind. We don’t generally do that by conscious effort. We each form our worldviews without effort. To each of us, our own worldviews seem like reality. They seem more real than reality itself. The illusion is so powerful that we disregard facts and observations that conflict with our worldviews. We think reality is unreal when viewed through the filter of our worldviews.

Related:

generalizing-from-a-hypostatization fallacy

Conjunction-Effect Fallacy

(a.k.a. Conjunction Fallacy)

Thinking a specific condition is more likely than a general condition

Humans naturally think a defined condition is more likely than an undefined condition. We’re more likely to believe a story if the story contains more details. The story seems more real to us. It seems more likely, yet it’s less likely.

We’re more likely to see a man on the corner than we are to see a man with a cane on the corner. However, when we hear anything more fully defined, it seems real. When we hear anything less fully defined, it seems unreal. That’s true even if a persuader is making up the entire description from imagination.

The conjunction-effect fallacy is the opposite of the disjunction fallacy. The conjunction-effect fallacy mistakes a super-set for one or more alternatives of equal standing. The disjunction fallacy mistakes a subset or member of the more general class for an alternative of equal standing with the class.

Related:

fallacy of misleading vividness

Conjunction Fallacy

Thinking a conjunctive statement is more likely than either of its component statements

Example:

Which of the following is more likely? Sally is an atheist bartender. Sally is an atheist. Sally is a bartender.

The first statement is less likely, so thinking it’s more likely is the conjunction fallacy. The first statement is a conjunctive statement. The second and third statements are the components of that conjunctive statement. Both the second and third statement must be true before the first statement can be true. If the first statement is true, then both the second and third statements must also be true. And yet, either the second or third statement can be true without making the first statement true.

Consensual-Sin Fallacy

Thinking sin isn’t sin if those involved in the sin consent to the sin

Examples:

The congressman had several relationships with adult women after his divorce, but he assures us they were consensual.

This fallacy seeks to tell us the politically correct way to sin. It also commits the fallacy of moralism.

Conspiracy Theory Fallacy

Originally, a phantom fallacy created by the CIA to discredit anyone who researched the Kennedy assassination

A phantom fallacy used to discredit anyone who disagrees with the status quo

Basing decisions on a theory about a non-existent conspiracy

If we think any theory is part of reality, we commit a fallacy. However, persuaders use this specialized fallacy to silence anyone who disagrees with the insiders’ narrative. Persuaders use this phantom fallacy for message control. Those who are doing evil or dishonest things are likely to use the term “conspiracy theory” to stop those who try to investigate their wrong-doing.

Many conspiracies are real. Going beyond what we know about them is a theory and a fallacy. It’s not a theory to notice something strange is going on.

For instance, the Communist Manifesto lays out the goals of Communism. Those goals may have changed or splintered in different groups, but they’ve successfully carried out many conspiracies.

Examples of Real Conspiracies:

They have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, T.V. and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; nationality minority groups and civil and political units. ~ FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations regarding the communist conspiracy

Yet the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent. ~ FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, The Elks Magazine, August 1956

• The Homosexual Manifesto is a real conspiracy, although homosexual activists tried hard to cover their tracks, claiming it was satire. They have largely accomplished their goals.
• In 1980, Marilyn Ferguson wrote a book called “The Aquarian Conspiracy” with Willis Harman of Stanford Research Institute directing the work. Ferguson wrote it as a popular version of a policy study about how to change the United States into a godless state. The conspiracy consists of a loosely-knit networking group. It’s a network of networks. The main call is “unity in diversity.” This networking system organizes groups as diverse as atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Communists to work together for a common purpose, which is the destruction of biblical Christianity. The New Age Movement (NAM) extends across all these other groups. All members of these groups aren’t necessarily consciously involved in NAM. We find some common beliefs, but they’re hard to pin down.
• In the 1980s, a group tried to establish a one-world government in which many surprisingly high-ranking people thought they were on the brink of destroying America so they could accomplish their dream. They felt they could crash the U. S. economy. God intervened, and America survived. Their effort continues as of this writing, but if we try to theorize beyond what we can prove, we commit a fallacy.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ~ Ephesians 6:12 Berean Study Bible

Over all the various conspiracies in the physical realm, there’s a much more powerful conspiracy in the heavenly places. Principalities and powers and wield spiritual power to direct and control those who try to destroy Christ and set up godless governments.

What is the New Age Movement?

Contention-Against Christ Fallacy

Argument against Christ

All arguments against Christ are fallacies because persuaders base these arguments on arbitrary assumptions, made-up stories, and other fallacies. That’s the inevitable result of the ungodly-thinking fallacy.

Contention-Against the Bible Fallacy

Argument against the Bible

When persuaders argue against the Bible, they can’t be rational. They have to base their thinking on arbitrary assumptions, made-up stories, and other fallacies. They don’t have any other choice. That’s the unavoidable result of the ungodly thinking problem.

Context-Imposition Fallacy

Believing, implying, or claiming one’s own context (worldview) is reality

Imposing one’s own worldview on reality

The context imposition fallacy is the act of presuming one’s own worldview. We can impose our worldviews onto situations, people, events, or any other part of reality. A context is a worldview. Every thinker has a worldview, but that doesn’t mean every thinker has his or her own reality. Rather, every thinker has his or her own fake reality, while the real reality is outside the concepts of the thinkers. However, this fake reality seems real to each of us.

We defend our own worldviews without considering the existence of other possibilities. Other possibilities seem unreal and insane. Since the interpretation, based on the worldview, seems rational to the thinker imposing his or her context, such a thinker can’t tell the difference between the thinker’s own inner worldview and reality itself.

Continuum Fallacy

(a.k.a. 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, or Sorites Fallacy)

Believing, implying, or asserting there’s no definable moment or point on the line between two extremes

Examples:

Since you can still make errors and you can’t even determine how mature you are in Christ, you can’t really know anything. You can’t even know whether it’s Christ leading you or a demon.

There are variations in the original texts of the Bible. Therefore, you can’t know whether the instructions in the Bible are true or false.

You say it’s hot out, but heat is a continuum, so there is no point at which you can say it’s either hot or cold.

This fallacy applies well to continuums like temperature or speed, but it doesn’t automatically apply to everything. For instance, there’s none good but God. The human mind is deceitful and desperately wicked beyond our ability to know. Providentially, there’s a path to God through Jesus Christ, but it’s not by trying to reform the human mind. Our carnal minds must die by degrees as the Holy Spirit builds up Christ within. We can’t mix Christ in us with our carnal minds though both live within us. The continuum exists since God is continually changing us. At any moment, our carnal human mind has died to some degree and Christ rules within to some degree.

A similar condition exists between truth and untruth. Most lies are statements that mix truth with untruth, but lies are untrue. Truth is exclusive since it excludes all untruths, but any complex statement may include some truth and some untruth. This ratio is a continuum.

Contradiction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Inconsistency Fallacy, Conflict, Conflicting Ideas, or Law-of-Non-Contradiction Fallacy)

Making two mutually exclusive claims

Breaking the Law of Non-Contradiction

A contradiction in reasoning

Examples:

I’m certain I can’t be certain of anything.

That statement refutes itself. If this relativist can’t be certain of anything then he can’t be certain he’s certain he can’t be certain of anything. Whew! That’s hard to think about.

Since no one can know anything, I know you can’t know Jesus Christ is leading you and teaching you.

Here’s another person who makes an absolute claim: “no one can know anything.” Then, she makes another absolute claim: “you can’t know Jesus Christ is leading and teaching you.” But the two claims contradict each other. Two contradictory statements can’t both be true at the same time in the same relationship.

Sandy Sandbuilder: The most important morality is tolerance. We must tolerate all views. This means we must accept them as good and correct. You are intolerant because you don’t embrace every view.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What views do you think I don’t tolerate?

Sandy: You don’t help the LGBT movement, and you don’t vote for politicians who promote abortion to name two.

Rocky: If you’re going to be consistent, embrace both my views and your views and support both sides of these issues.

Sandy: Never! I cannot be tolerant of what is intolerable.

The word “tolerant” used to mean to tolerate or allow even those ideas with which you don’t agree. The new politically correct definition makes the word irrational and forces inconsistency as this exchange points out.

Persuaders who commit the inconsistency fallacy make two or more contradictory claims. They say two or more mutually exclusive claims are true at the same time and in the same way. Consider a couple of scenarios:

Sally claims she owns a Ford. Then, she claims to own a Chevy. She could own both cars at once, so she’s not inconsistent.

Sally claims she never had a time when she owned two cars. She could still have had one car at one time and the other car at another time, so she’s not inconsistent.

Sally claims to have a Ford and a Chevy right now, but she never owned two cars at once. She could be renting the Ford, so she’s not inconsistent.

However, if Sally claims to own a Ford and a Chevy right now, but she never owned two cars at once, then she’s inconsistent.

Sally can be internally inconsistency or externally inconsistent. If she’s internally inconsistent, she’ll contradict her own thinking. If she’s externally inconsistent, her statements will conflict with external reality.

Contradictory-Premises Fallacy

(a.k.a. Logical Paradox or Contradictory-Propositions Fallacy)

A logical argument in which two or more premises conflict with each other

Persuaders who commit contradictory-premises fallacies make statements of proof that can’t be true in the same way at the same time. Since they contradict one another, they can’t all be true. All premises must be true, or the logic isn’t sound. That means the logic can’t be sound if the premises conflict with each other.

However, a thinker may have contradictory premises and still have true premises that prove the conclusion. Just because one or more premise fails, that doesn’t prove the conclusion false. It makes the logic unsound, but restating the logic with only true premises and valid form may prove the conclusion to be true.

Contrarian-Argument Fallacy

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement

When a persuader commits a contrarian-argument fallacy, he argues just to be disagreeable. He gives no sound reason for the argument. If a true premise conflicts with a statement, there’s a reason to reject the statement. However, without a reason to argue, a contrarian argues against the statement. A reason to argue would include true premises and valid form.

Contrarians often argue to needle or ridicule. They may just want to draw attention to themselves. Alternately, a contrarian may have a goal of politicking, intimidating, or message control.

A contrarian may pretend to search for truth. The contrarian may commit fallacies and fallacy abuse.

Converse-Accident Fallacy

(a.k.a. Reverse-Accident Fallacy or destroying the exception)

Using a specific case to create a general rule

Example:

Bill goes to church every week, and he’s well-respected as a Christian. Bill sold me his used Ford, and the engine blew up the first week that I had it. I guess you can’t trust Christians. They all sell you junk Fords.

Cool-Idolatry Fallacy

Living for the approval of others

Thinkers committing cool-idolatry fallacies define reality and truth as whatever fits into the approval of others or what’s considered cool. The cool god demands that they do and believe what others define as cool. The power of this god is peer pressure, so it’s a form of the appeal-to-bribery fallacy.

Correlation-Proves-Causation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, With This; Therefore Because of This, Coincidental Correlation, or Correlation Implies Causation)

Taking statistical correlation between two variables as proof that one causes the other

Examples:

Yes, the antievolutionism of Americans is a direct result of their high religiosity, but people like Mooney try to ensure that this does not become generally known. ~ Coyne

“Antievolutionism” is Coyne’s word that means believing what God is saying through His creation, through Scripture, and through His direct communication with the human spirit and soul/mind. So, Coyne is saying correlation proves causation. He claims correlation between high religiosity and rejection of the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story proves high religiosity is the cause. However, religiosity doesn’t cause the rejection even though Coyne implies it does. God’s voice speaking to His people and telling them to reject the lie of the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story causes the rejection. God speaks to His people and tells them to come to know Him personally through Jesus Christ. He asks them to listen as He directs them moment by moment. He asks them to stop leaning on their own understandings and to acknowledge Him in all their ways. He assures them He will then direct their paths.

We find similar biochemistry in all life, and evolution is the cause of that. Therefore, evolution happened.

This persuader claims evolution is the cause. She’s telling an untrue story, and she’s committing the fallacy of false cause. We see correlation since we do find similar biochemistry in all life. However, a common designer causes this correlation. By divine revelation, we know God does it and evolution doesn’t do it. And yet, this persuader claims molecules-to-humanity evolution causes this correlation and then she implies correlation proves the stories of molecules-to-humanity evolution. However, correlation doesn’t prove causation. We know, by divine revelation, that God created everything. A common designer and creator would cause this same effect. Divine revelation proves the Creator God caused similar biochemistry in all life. We must prove cause rather than assuming it.

Correlative-Based Fallacy

Claiming one of two statements must be true and the other must be false without proving it

Examples:

An intelligent, rational person can’t believe in God.

The persuader implies being intelligent and rational is mutually exclusive to believing in God. However, without Christ and His revelation, it’s impossible to be rational.

Atheists use evidence and reason. Bible-believing Christians substitute faith for evidence and reason.

That’s a common way new atheists are attacking Christ-followers. And yet, faith is the substance (reality) of what God has given us a vision of hope for. It’s the evidence (absolutely certain proof) of things not seen. Only by faith can we have proof. Faith comes when God speaks and only when God speaks. Only God has the authority to make known truth. Sound reason requires a true premise. And the only way to have a true premise is if God reveals the premise. Therefore, no atheist can have sound reasoning.

The correlative-based fallacy thinks a correlative conjunction exists when it doesn’t exist. A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements in which one must be false, and the other must be true. If the statements aren’t mutually exclusive, we commit the correlative-based fallacy.

Related:

false dilemma, denying the correlative, and suppressed correlative

Exception:

Sometimes one thing must be true and the other false, and that isn’t a fallacy.

Corrupt-Source Fallacy

Using unproven information from an unreliable source to support a proposition

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Evolution is a fact. I read it in the newspaper.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What makes you think that’s true?

Sandy: I told you; I read it in the newspaper.

If a source has made an error at one time, we can’t rationally use it as the authority. If a source has made a mistake once, then it’s not a valid authority. We commit a fallacy if we accept information from such sources as authoritative since we can’t depend on the source for true premises.

I will raise up a prophet like you from among their relatives, and I will place my words in his mouth so that he may expound everything that I have commanded to them. But if someone will not listen to those words that the prophet speaks in my name, I will hold him accountable. Even then, if the prophet speaks presumptuously in my name, which I didn’t authorize him to speak, or if he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.’ Now you may ask yourselves, ‘How will we be able to discern that the LORD has not spoken?’ Whenever a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, and the oracle does not come about or the word is not fulfilled, then the LORD has not spoken it. The prophet will have spoken presumptuously, so you need not fear him.” ~ Deuteronomy 18:18-22 International Standard Version

The opposite of the corrupt-source fallacy is the genetic fallacy. If we dismiss independently confirmed data because of its source, we commit the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy attacks the source instead of dealing with the evidence and reasoning on its merits. We must have a sound reason for rejecting the source. However, if the source could be wrong, we need proof for any statements. We can’t accept the source as an unquestioned authority if it could be wrong.

On the other hand, the corrupt-source fallacy accepts unconfirmed data from a source when the source isn’t authoritative enough to confirm data as true. Usually, the source of information can neither confirm nor deny the truth of the information. The only exception is if this source is God, which includes God speaking through Scripture. When we hear an explanation of Scripture, we don’t hear Scripture as it’s written, and we don’t listen to God.

Counterfactual Fallacy

(a.k.a. Assertion Contrary to Fact, Lie, or Untruth)

A lie

A statement contrary to fact

A persuader may state an untruth as a premise or conclusion. The persuader may mix the false statement with some truth to make it more deceptive, or the total statement may be untrue.

All lies originate from Satan. ^{(John 8:44)} Some ungodly thinkers are certain Satan doesn’t exist, so these ungodly thinkers have filtered Satan out of their worldviews, and they assume Satan doesn’t exist based on their worldviews. That’s a fallacy that counters the facts. It’s against the facts. They may even try to prove Satan doesn’t exist by the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule, which is a smokescreen to hide the counterfactual fallacy.

Counter-Induction Fallacy

Believing that evidence against a conclusion proves the conclusion

Believing, implying, or asserting a conclusion when rational thought would suggest the opposite conclusion

The evidence all points to one conclusion. The evidence refutes a second conclusion. And yet a persuader claims the evidence points to the second conclusion, which the evidence doesn’t support.

Examples:

There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion. Life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution. ~ Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.

Though the universe seems designed, it’s not designed.

Even though evolutionists make this argument, it’s an argument against the evidence. They tell us to ignore the evidence and to listen to them.

We don’t interpret the vast amounts of sedimentary rock all over the earth as evidence of a worldwide flood.

Every evidence points to a worldwide flood. However, evolutionists can’t allow such a flood since any worldwide flood would have wiped out any previous fossil evidence and would have deposited the fossils we now see.

The Bible’s account of the Genesis Flood borrows from earlier myths. Over 270 cultures have Flood myths, and they are surprisingly similar in many details, so the entire story is just a myth.

It’s the other way around. The more witnesses to an event, the more likely the event happened. God deliberately kept the biblical history accurate. God reveals this fact to us. We would expect many cultures would remember such a momentous event. Some disbelievers use many eye-witness accounts of the Flood as evidence to claim the Flood never happened, which is counter-inductive.

Crackers-in-the-Pantry Fallacy

(a.k.a. Checkable Lie)

A checkable false claim

If someone says there are crackers in the pantry, the simple way to find out is by looking in the pantry.

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: There’s absolute evidence that proves molecules turned into people over vast amounts of time.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Then show me the evidence, but I don’t accept made-up stuff as evidence. Don’t tell me about an observation with stories or assumptions to interpret it for me. I need to see it and experience it for myself. That’s what science is. Show me a way to test your claim without making up stories.

The example shows a checkable lie. When we ask top evolutionists for this absolute evidence (looking in the pantry), they respond with many fallacies. They always give the illusion of evidence but no absolute proof. Some lies are uncheckable. Examples of uncheckable lies include billions of years or the flying spaghetti monster. Maybe we shouldn’t call these lies since we can’t prove they’re lies. To claim there’s evidence for these is a checkable lie, and we can ask for a way to prove billions of years happened or flying spaghetti monsters exist. We won’t get any proof—just stories and rhetoric.

Rocky Rockbuilder: There’s absolute evidence Jesus Christ exists and anyone who seeks Him will find Him and He leads, teaches, and corrects those who follow Him.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Show me the evidence, but I don’t accept made-up stuff as evidence. Don’t tell me about an observation with stories or assumptions to interpret it for me. I need to see it and experience it for myself. That’s what science is. Show me a way to test your claim without making up stories.

Rocky: First, every person, including you, falls short of God’s glory and purpose for your life. He wants every person to serve Him in holiness and perfection. You haven’t served Him in holiness and perfection. The punishment is hell, but He didn’t want that for you, so He paid the price for you. Tell Him you’re sorry that you’ve sinned and fallen short of His glory, and tell Him you want to turn that around. Tell Him you want His righteousness rather than your own failed attempts at righteousness. Ask Him to come and indwell you and to be your Lord, ruling over every aspect of your life. Renounce any sins you have committed, those you know about and those you don’t. Ask Him to begin to lead, teach, and correct you continually. Start to listen to His voice when He does. Get a Bible and begin reading it daily while asking Him to interpret the meaning of the words you’re reading. Ask Him to speak to you through the Bible, though the created world, and through Christian friends. Join a Bible-believing church and a prayer fellowship and attend regularly. Stop seeking out ungodly counsel, and ask God to reveal those places where He wants you to get your counsel. Lay out everything you think you know before Him, and let Him show you what parts are real and what parts are lies. That will take a while. Persist in this until you know for certain you have found Him and He leads you.

Now, Sandy Sandbuilder can check it out. If crackers are in the pantry, look in the pantry.

Creating-Misgivings Fallacy

Planting irrational doubt or fear into the minds of a person or a group of people

That was Satan’s tactic when he asked Eve, “Has God said?” Ungodly thinkers cast doubt on Scripture using irrational arguments.

Related:

against-self-confidence fallacy

Creative-Paraphrase Fallacy

A false claim about what someone said or did

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: I believe in Jesus Christ because I know Him. He teaches me moment by moment. He corrects me when I’m wrong. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth.

Sandy Sandbuilder: So you’re claiming to know everything, and you’re claiming you can never be wrong. You’re also claiming your presupposition of the existence of Jesus Christ is proof for the existence of Jesus Christ, so that’s circular reasoning.

Sandy Sandbuilder paraphrased creatively to commit straw-man fallacies. Every word that Sandy said was a straw man.

Persuaders who commit the creative-paraphrase fallacy summarize a quote, attitude, or event. However, they add or remove information to create a new statement and use this new statement to deceive us.

We’ve seen this fallacy used in the political process. Every news outlet continually repeats a hyperbole of a candidate’s statement. Finally, the general populace becomes convinced the hyperbole is what the candidate said as the lie becomes “common knowledge.”

Crucial-Experiment Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment)

Claiming that a single experiment proved or disproved something

Scientists can’t determine anything through a single experiment since science doesn’t work that way. Scientists perform many experiments. Then they interpret the results with inductive reasoning, and assumptions. Some substitute divine revelation for assumptions. Then they decide on a tentative, pragmatic course of action. They can then prove a certain experiment has a certain predictable, observable outcome. However, they can’t prove anything with inductive reasoning and assumptions. They must stick with the observations rather than the explanations of observations.

Cutting-Off-Discussion Fallacy

(a.k.a. Conversation Stopper)

Ending communication as a tactic for negotiation or debate

Persuaders sometimes use this tactic to avoid an important and needful discussion or to avoid answering a difficult question.

Examples:

This discussion shouldn’t even be happening, and so this discussion is over. I’m right, and you’re wrong.

The persuader ends the discussion but makes sure she gets the last word.

Epithets like “bigotry” are used all too often to shut down debate. It’s the equivalent of saying, “This conversation is over because the Bible says.” Well, you can’t continue to have a conversation if someone is going to use a conversation stopper. And just as we would accuse someone who tries to shut down conversation by saying, “The Bible says,” of being a fundamentalist, all too often, we have secular fundamentalists today, people who, because of their beliefs about same-sex marriage, or abortion, or immigration—it doesn’t matter—they want to shut down debate and discussion by calling the other guys names. . . . Don’t fall for it. ~ Professor Robert George

That’s an interesting example since it’s inconsistent. It opposes cutting off discussion while giving an example where cutting off discussion is supposedly OK. The statement cuts off discussion of the Bible being God’s word without error, and it cuts off those who believe we can know some fundamental truths. The statement implies persuaders can legitimately cut off those two views by using epithets like “fundamentalist.” That’s a warning to all university students who believe the Bible. It lets them know they should keep their thoughts hidden because they aren’t allowed to have those thoughts at the university or the thought police will punish them.

On the other hand, when a persuader is using the debate mindset rather than rationally discussing an issue with us, we might as well end the discussion. One of the curses the Internet has brought us is a supply of rude strangers who love to argue endlessly and irrationally. It seems these people love to burn up our time. Some argue for the sake of arguing. Some argue to push a philosophy like secularism or Satanism. If their minds aren’t open, there’s no sense in discussing. We often find it necessary to cut off a discussion with someone who doesn’t want the truth but has endless time. Still, we can do it respectfully:

Rocky Rockbuilder: I don’t think we’ve agreed, and I can’t spend any more time on this discussion. I do hope you consider my invitation to know Jesus Christ. If you do, you won’t be sorry. If you don’t, you’ll regret it one day. You can verify Jesus for yourself. You’ll need to persist and totally change your way of thinking. You’ll need to desire to do His will. So, the invitation stands. It’s not my invitation, by the way. Christ is personally inviting you. Have a good night.’

Sandy Sandbuilder: I considered your invitation – without merit.

Rocky: I hope you at least give it some thought. I’m praying for you right now. Good night.

Of course, a person who truly hates Christ may wrangle on, and that’s exactly what this particular Sandy Sandbuilder did. By leaving the conversation, this Rocky was free to live life and not waste any more time on a closed mind.

Dangling-Comparative Fallacy

A comparison between two things, but one of the things is missing

Form:

X is better. (Than what?)

Z is worse. (Than what?)

Exception:

The religious leaders brought a woman to Jesus and told Him they had caught her in the act of adultery. They asked whether she should be stoned to death since that’s the punishment in God’s Law. Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” They all left, the oldest first. Then Jesus asked, “Where are your accusers. Hasn’t anyone condemned you” The woman said, “No one.” Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more lest a worse thing happens to you.”

When Jesus did this, He showed mercy, but He also gave a warning. He used what some might think is a dangling comparative. However, we can answer the question “worse than what?” Worse than being stoned.

Darkness-Light-Substitute Fallacy

(a.k.a. Good-for-Evil Fallacy)

Confusing good for evil and evil for good

How terrible it will be for those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute what is bitter for what is sweet and what is sweet for what is bitter! ~ Isaiah 5:20 International Standard Version

Without divine revelation, the human mind has no way to know the difference between good and evil. However, God does reveal this difference to every person, so everyone knows, and no one has any excuse. We can subvert or distort this inner knowledge of good and evil. A conscience can become weak or wounded. (1 Corinthians 8:12) It can become seared. (1 Timothy 4:2) It can become defiled. (Titus 1:15) It can require purging. (Hebrews 9:14) It can become evil. (Hebrews 10:22)

Examples:

• Claiming a woman is right to kill her child but claiming it’s wrong to say abortion is murder
• Claiming sexual sin is morally right but claiming anyone who warns against sexual sin is morally wrong
• Claiming covetousness is right but condemning anyone who says covetousness is a sin

Debate-Mindset Fallacy

(a.k.a. Debate Rather than Trying to Find the Truth)

Debating to “win” instead of looking for truth

The emphasis is on winning debates or defeating opponents instead of finding the truth. In these cases, fallacies become key tools to use. Debaters don’t see fallacies as something to avoid. Debates are mind games. In these mind games, deception becomes a virtue. Often, debaters just play to the crowd.

Deceptive-Concession Fallacy

(a.k.a. Deceptive Confession, Admitting a Small Fault to Cover a Big Denial, Confession-to-Hide-Denial Fallacy)

Conceding a minor issue or an irrelevant issue to get a concession on a major issue

Examples:

You can’t know. I’ll grant you that. ~ Bill Nye

Bill’s statement is an extreme example since he gave the impression that he was conceding by using the phrase, “I’ll grant you that.” He’s not conceding. He denies God’s existence, but he’ll grant that no one can know one way or the other. In his statement, Bill is claiming omniscience. By divine revelation, we know anyone can know Christ. And we know God has revealed Himself to every person. We know by divine revelation. So no one has any excuse. That means Bill was wrong on both counts in this case.

In a deceptive-concession fallacy, a persuader concedes a minor error to hide a huge error.

Related:

fallacy of distraction and false-compromise fallacy

Declaring-Victory Fallacy

(a.k.a. Proof by False Declaration of Victory)

Claiming to have settled an issue before settling the issue

Persuaders who commit the declaring-victory fallacy substitute an announcement of victory for rational thought with an effect similar to summary dismissal.

Examples:

Evolution is settled science.

The debate is over.

Deductive Fallacy

A fallacy in deductive reasoning

“Deductive fallacy” is a broad term including all deductive fallacies.

Default-Position Fallacy

(a.k.a. Claiming the Default Position)

A proposition claimed to be true unless it’s shown to be false

Persuaders who commit default-position fallacies claim to hold the default position while also committing argument-from-ignorance fallacies.

Examples:

Secularism is the default position.

Evolution is the default position. All other claims must show proof.

Naturalism is the default position requiring no proof, but you must prove any claim of God’s work.

Biblical Christianity is the default position requiring no proof, but you must prove any claim God isn’t involved.

The first three examples don’t have a way to prove what’s called the default position. However, we could potentially state the fourth example rationally by saying anyone can know Jesus Christ and disprove naturalism. Anyone can test whether they can know Jesus Christ. They can prove His reality if they’re willing to know Him. If we do that, we don’t claim the default position, but Christ proves Himself to us. We demand that same level of proof of all other claims.

Defining-a-Word-in-Terms-of-Itself Fallacy

Defining a word using the word in the definition, so the definition doesn’t say any more than the word does

Examples:

Circular reasoning is reasoning that reasons in a circle, and it’s often valid to do this.

Natural selection is the selection of the fittest by natural processes.

We can’t know how someone is defining a word when that person defines the word by using the word, or a derivative of the word, in the definition. However, that’s only a fallacy if a persuader uses it to support a claim.

Defining-Terms-Too-Broadly-and-Too-Narrowly Fallacy

Defining a word to include things normally not part of the definition of the word and to exclude things normally part of the definition of the word

A persuader defines a term too broadly in some applications and too narrowly in other applications.

Example:

Science includes observation and assumptions [too broad], but it doesn’t allow anything that conflicts with certain assumptions [too narrow].

This definition is too broad and too narrow at the same time. The persuader defines “science” to mean both observation and assumptions. He’s defining “science” as observation of reality and selected make-believe. At the same time, by restricting it to certain favored make-believe assumptions, the persuader loses objectivity. For example, the persuader assumes naturalism is part of “science,” but assumes divine revelation can’t be part of “science” since it conflicts with the assumption of naturalism. This double standard is accomplished through a persuasive definition of the word “science.”

Related:

definist fallacy

Defining-Terms-Too-Broadly Fallacy

(a.k.a. Discarded Differentia)

Defining a term so it includes people, items, things, or concepts in a way that keeps us from knowing what the term means

Example:

“Science” means whatever we can know from observation, and “science” also means stories that scientists make up to go beyond what they can observe.

With this definition, we can’t know what “science” means when someone uses the term. “Science” could be knowledge, or “science” could be pretending. A person devoted to the groupthink of mainstream science would make this statement more persuasively using vague euphemisms for the made-up part.

Related:

definist fallacy

Defining-Terms-Too-Narrowly Fallacy

Defining a term to give a false impression by excluding certain things

Defining a term excluding people, items, things, or concepts, then using this persuasive definition as “proof” for a desired conclusion

Narrowly defining a term isn’t automatically a fallacy. However, it’s always a fallacy to use a definition to prove a point. Sometimes persuaders use narrow definitions to prove conclusions, and in those cases, the proof is phantom proof. It’s fake.

Examples:

I define “scientist” as only those who believe in the big bang, billions of years, molecules-to-humankind story, so I exclude all other scientists. Therefore, all scientists agree the big bang, billions of years, and molecules-to-humankind stories happened. That proves the big-bang, billions-of-years, and molecules-to-humankind stories since there wouldn’t be total agreement if these stories didn’t absolutely happen.

Science is naturalistic by definition. If any explanation includes God or Creation, then it isn’t scientific. Given the limits of naturalism, we can only explain how the universe and the earth became what we see today with the stories of big bang, billions of years, abiogenesis, and molecules-to-humanity evolution. Therefore, there is no competing scientific theory. The naturalistic viewpoint is the only possible scientific viewpoint available.

This persuader tries to make it seem like he has a reason for defining science this way. However, he’s just making bare claims with no proof. For example, we’ve worded these claims clearly. Persuaders don’t generally make their fallacies that obvious. They cloud the same thoughts with innuendos or other smokescreen fallacies.

Related:

definist fallacy

Dehumanizing Fallacy

Ad hominem attack portraying the target of the attack as not really human

A persuader may dehumanize an entire class of people or a single person.

Examples:

The negro is not a human being. ~ Buckner Payne, 1867

Women are . . . not persons in the matter of rights and privileges. ~ British common law, 1876

The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. ~ Adolph Hitler, 1923

How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds. ~ Margaret Sanger

Those killed by the regime are labeled unpersons. ~ Soviet Union, 1938

The word person . . . does not include the unborn. ~ United States Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 1973

Demagoguery Fallacy

Using false claims and popular prejudice to gain power

Attacking others or inciting anger against others to build up political power, personal popularity, a belief, a philosophy, or an organization

Examples:

• Some persuaders use name-calling rather than using sound logic. Names may include misogynist, bigot, homophobe, climate-change-denier, heretic, or evolution-denier. Some of those names are fallacies in themselves. Others misrepresent reality.
• Some persuaders stir up anger against a political candidate by telling lies about the candidate’s history with certain groups of people and misquoting the candidate regarding those groups of people to demonize the candidate.
• We’ve seen those who incite violence on various university campuses. They incite hatred to silence and cancel godly opinions or non-globalist opinions.
• Some Christian personalities demonize anyone with whom they disagree.

It’s not a fallacy to agree with most people when the majority is right. It’s not a fallacy to win an election, even though some people win elections by committing fallacies. It’s never a fallacy to point out a real problem or danger.

Demanding-an-Uneven-Burden-of-Proof Fallacy

(a.k.a. Demanding Uneven Standards of Acceptance)

Believing that one position needs proof, but the conflicting position doesn’t need proof

The fallacy of demanding an uneven burden of proof is a form of special pleading. Persuaders use it when their goal winning a debate instead of finding truth.

Examples:

The burden of proof is on you.

The one making the claim has the burden of proof.

Both sides of an issue have a burden of proof. Both sides are responsible to look at the evidence without bias. However, if a thinker hasn’t exposed his or her position, this thinker may try to keep this position hidden to avoid the need to defend the position.

This fallacy comes up in discussions with disbelievers who say things like, “Prove the existence of God. I’m neutral since I simply haven’t seen any proof of God.” This tactic is a problem for Christians who don’t want to admit they’re led and taught by God moment-by-moment. It’s not a problem for a person who follows Christ and isn’t afraid to testify of the experience. A Christ-follower who’s not afraid can invite others to know Christ. Anyone with an open mind can verify Christ since every person who seeks Christ finds Christ. At this point, the I-haven’t-seen-any-proof argument fails since the disbelievers can see proof if they’ll open their minds enough to look at it.

Democracy-Panacea Fallacy

Believing that democracy is the answer to life’s problems

Examples:

If we can spread Democracy to every country, the world will have peace and prosperity.

If we can just destroy Christianity, we can set up our worldwide godless utopia.

Christ is the answer. Democracy isn’t the answer, but neither is totalitarianism, socialism, or communism. Jesus Christ is the answer. Socialism and Communism always fight God and persecute Christians while removing the natural incentive to work. Socialism and communism take money from one group by force and give it to another group. That requires a strong central government. When evil people get control of this central government, they oppress. We would like to think evil people won’t get control, but they do.

Demonizing Fallacy

(a.k.a. De-legitimizing the Opponent)

Portraying one or more people as wicked or threatening

Demonizing is an extreme form of ad hominem attack, and it’s also a substitute for discussing the issue at hand using sound reasoning. When a persuader claims someone is wicked or threatening we should examine any proof closely. If the proof is weak, keep an eye on the persuader. Persuaders use the demonizing fallacy to silence all who disagree with the viewpoint of the person using the fallacy.

Denialism Fallacy

Ignoring reality

Denying the obvious

Example:

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. ~ George Wald, Nobel Laureate

Wald couldn’t even account for a fraction of the problem, yet he knew it couldn’t happen without God. Even so, in denial of reality, many ungodly thinkers still affirm spontaneous generation. Several ungodly web pages work hard to defend this quote, implying the impossible is inevitable with the magic wand of billions of years. It’s not true, but it soothes the mind of a person who doesn’t want God to exist.

Denying-the-Antecedent Fallacy

(a.k.a. Inverse Error)

Inferring the inverse from the original statement

Form:

If X, then Z. Not-X. Therefore, not-Z.

If you only know X isn’t true, you can’t say whether Z is true. You would need other information to know whether Z is true or false.

Denying-the-Conjunct Fallacy

(a.k.a. Disjunctive Syllogism )

In a statement that joins two statements, thinking the total statement being false also assures both statements that make up the overall statement are false

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: God says He created the heavens and the earth in six days, and science proves God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Therefore, God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Science can’t prove anything about the past since science is based on repeatable observation, so your entire statement is false. Therefore, that proves God didn’t create the heavens and the earth in six days.

Rocky: I misspoke. You’re right when you say science can’t prove anything about the past, and you’re right to say my entire statement is false since it was a compound statement. However, the first part of my statement is true when taken on its own. God says He created the heavens and the earth in six days. Therefore, God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

Sandy Sandbuilder committed the formal fallacy of denying the conjunct. Rocky committed the fallacy of basing a premise on a statement contrary to fact. And yet, Rocky’s conclusion was true.

Denying-the-Correlative-Conjunction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Denying the Correlative)

Proposing a third choice when only two mutually exclusive choices exist and one of those must be true

Persuaders see two statements where one must be true, and the other must be false. That’s the correlative conjunction. Then they introduce a third, unreal choice, trying to add alternatives when no other alternatives exist.

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: We must base all conclusions about observations either on made-up stuff or divine revelation.

Sandy Sandbuilder: There’s another alternative. We can base our conclusions on observation.

Rocky: You deny the correlative conjunction by using a disjunction fallacy. God speaks to every person through observation. So observation is part of divine revelation. However, making up stuff adds to what God says through observation, converting the revelation into made-up stuff. Therefore, only two choices exist, revelation or making up stuff.

We know all knowledge is hidden in Christ Jesus. We also know people can gain knowledge through observation. But they can only gain knowledge of what they observe. It doesn’t include any reasoning beyond what comes in through the senses. Since all knowledge is hidden in Christ, knowledge comes from Jesus Christ through observation. Two people can be looking at the same thing, and one will see something the other didn’t see. That shows Christ can be selective in what He reveals through observation. That’s the observation of the brute-beast mind. It’s available for survival among all animals and humans. The brute-beast mind has no way to reason beyond the observation unless God provides further revelation through the human intuition, the Bible, or some other means of revelation. Usually, those who argue that observation doesn’t involve divine revelation also want to reason beyond their observations. They claimed observation doesn’t involve divine revelation but never observed it. They attempted to reason beyond observation. However, the human mind has no way to self-generate the truth necessary for such reasoning.

Determinism Fallacy

(a.k.a. Determination or Determinist Fallacy)

Believing, implying, or saying free will is an illusion

No one can conclude that free will is an illusion without assuming. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. Therefore, those who claim free will is an illusion base this claim on made-up stuff.

Didit Fallacy

Explaining an observation by attributing the observation to some entity without proof

Examples:

We can observe all these life-forms, so evolution did it.

We can observe all these massive geological features, so billions of years did it.

We can observe the creation, so it’s obvious God did it.

The didit fallacy is an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. Whenever we say X didit with no proof, we commit the didit fallacy. If we can prove what we claim, we don’t commit the didit fallacy. No one can assert evolutionism or billions of years without the didit fallacy since no one can prove these claims. However, God created and enforces every good thing. God proves it by revealing it. Of course, given the ungodly-thinking fallacy, no one can know anything about anything unless God reveals it.

Here are some didit fallacy examples:

• Naturalism didit.
• Uniformitarianism didit.
• Materialism didit.
• Evolution didit.
• Chance didit.
• Billions of years didit.
• Mother Nature didit.
• Nature didit.

Here are some more didit fallacy examples. We commit these when we fail to give God glory for the knowledge He gives us. God reveals these are true. If we acknowledge that, we don’t commit the fallacy. When we fail to acknowledge how we know, we confuse whoever we’re talking to.

• God didit.
• The Flood didit.
• The fall into sin didit.
• Prayer didit.

Most often, the didit fallacy is a phantom fallacy. Disbelievers use it to avoid God and the reality God reveals.

Diminished-Responsibility Fallacy

Believing an offender is less blamable because of an excuse when the excuse doesn’t prove the offender is less blamable

Example:

I’m not responsible for believing and thanking Jesus Christ. He hasn’t convinced me of His existence.

This argument doesn’t work with God since God knows the innermost thoughts of every person. And He knows He has revealed Himself specifically to the person who made this remark, but this person is willingly ignorant. People like that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Their real motivation is they prefer darkness to light because their deeds are evil.

Discrimination Fallacy

Bias against a race, worldview, political philosophy, religion, or anything like that

We’ve seen racial discrimination in the past, but now it comes in new forms. Even so, worldview discrimination is more common, and political correctness is an example of worldview discrimination. We witness worldview discrimination in hiring practices on college campuses, in Hollywood, in the news media, and many other parts of life, slanting heavily toward ungodliness and self-righteousness as opposed to true righteousness. Organizations practicing discrimination often claim neutrality and get government funding or government-enforced privileges to carry out their discrimination.

Disjunction Fallacy

Thinking a disjunctive statement is less likely than either of its component statements

Example:

Which of the following is less likely?

Sally is either an atheist or a Christian.

Sally is an atheist.

Sally is a Christian.

The first statement is more likely, so choosing the second or third statement is the disjunction fallacy. The first statement is a disjunctive statement. Because of the word “or,” if either component of the first statement is true, the entire statement is true. The second and third statements are the components of the first disjunctive statement. If Sally is an atheist, the first statement is true and the third statement is false. If Sally is a Christian, the first statement is true and the second statement is false.

Dismissing-Personal-Testimony Fallacy

Refusing to consider experience simply because it’s experience

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: I know Jesus Christ personally; He leads me, teaches me, and corrects me moment by moment, and every Christ-follower I know has the same experience. That’s why I believe Christ exists.

Sandy Sandbuilder: That’s anecdotal evidence, so it doesn’t mean anything.

Evidence comes in various degrees of credibility. We call evidence based on second-hand experience or observation “hearsay.” Personal eyewitness testimony or a testimony of an experience is more credible than hearsay. The scientific method includes recording personal testimony of experience (experiment) and observation. This experience and observation is more credible than second-hand experience or observation. Courts of law don’t accept hearsay, but they accept eyewitness testimony. In the Law given to Moses, no judge could sentence anyone to death for a crime without the personal eyewitness testimony of two or three witnesses. Persuaders sometimes use the fallacy of dismissing personal testimony to refute testimony that conflicts with a certain ungodly worldview. In these cases, dismissing personal testimony is just one more way to commit the card-stacking fallacy.

Distorted-Evidence Fallacy

Making significant omissions or changes in the evidence on which an argument depends

Examples:

The Bible promotes slavery.

This statement isn’t true, but some ungodly people teach it anyway. Teachers who repeat this lie distort the evidence.

We have seen natural events adding information to the genome.

This quote distorts evidence. The persuader is attempting to confuse us using a persuasive definition for the word “information” in which everything is information. A specific form of information “universal coded information,” only comes from other universal coded information. Natural forces would have to create new universal coded information for even the smallest step in imagined evolution. Not only would natural forces have to create universal coded information, but they would have to create coded information systems. However, natural processes never create new universal coded information let alone universal coded information systems. Natural forces always destroy universal coded information.

Science disproves the existence of God.

Nothing observed using the scientific method disproves God. The observations conflict with atheism, naturalism, and materialism.

Distortion-of-Senses-in-Observation Fallacy

Problems caused by the human sensory inability to observe accurately

The senses have trouble detecting what doesn’t fit the worldview or fake-reality. In this way, the worldview distorts the senses. Physical factors also distort or limit observation.

Division Fallacy

(a.k.a. False Division, Ecological Fallacy, or Ecological-Inference Fallacy)

Believing, implying, or saying what’s true for the whole must be true of the individual parts

Examples:

Cake is tasty. We use flour to make cake. Therefore, flour is tasty. Let’s have flour for dessert.

Most people don’t think flour is tasty on its own.

If we’re redeemed, we’re set free from sin. Christians are redeemed. Therefore, the fleshly nature and carnal minds of Christians are set free from sin.

Human beings have a three-part nature. We consist of our spirits, souls or minds, and our bodies. When we’re born again, our spirits are joined to the Holy Spirit, and we’re seated with Christ in heavenly places. The fleshly nature and carnal minds of Christians aren’t redeemed. The fleshly nature and carnal mind of Christians are in a battle to the death with the mind of Christ Who lives within every follower of Christ. We wait for the adoption when our God redeems our bodies. ^{(Romans 8:23)} Redemption is the freedom that comes from dying to self and living to Christ.

Dodging-by-Answering-a-Different-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Answering a Question That Was Not Asked)

Avoiding answering one question by answering a different question

Example:

Ken Ham: Show a new function that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there.

Bill Nye: There are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions.

That isn’t what Ken asked.

Related:

dodging-the-question fallacy

Dodging-by-Answering-a-Question-with-a-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Answering a Question with a Question)

Dodging a question by asking another question

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: You say I’m not experiencing what I’m experiencing when Christ leads me and teaches me. What is the method by which you think you know that?

Sandy Sandbuilder: Can you prove God to me?

Sandy Sandbuilder has dodged the question. Sandy has no method by which he could know Rocky isn’t experiencing what he’s experiencing. Should Rocky answer Sandy’s question or ask Sandy to answer the question Rocky asked?

Rocky could answer Sandy’s question by saying, “Not if you aren’t willing to look at the evidence.” Sandy will ask, “What evidence?” Of course, the evidence is Sandy getting to know Jesus Christ and coming to Christ in willing submission and obedience to do the will of Jesus. Sandy would need to confess his sinfulness, ask Jesus to forgive him, and humble himself to accept Jesus as Savior from sin. Of course, he would also need to want to be free from sin. However, Sandy dodged Rocky’s question by asking that question, which seems to indicate that Sandy isn’t interested in the truth.

Dodging-the-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Politician’s Sidestep)

Avoiding answering the question

Example:

Person from the Audience: How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

Bill Nye: This is a great mystery! You’ve hit the nail on the head. No. Uh, the, what was before the big bang? This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let’s keep looking. Let’s keep searching. When I was young, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down. Big bang, [simulated bang] ‘cept it’s in outer space, ‘s no air, so [silence and dramatic hand movements to simulate what Bill Nye claims to have happened] like that, and so people presumed that it would slow down, that the universe, that gravity especially would hold everything together. And maybe it’s going to come back and explode again, and people went out, and the mathematical expression is, is the universe flat? It’s a mathematical expression. Will the universe slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping? Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues went looking to the rate at which the universe was slowing down. Let’s go out and measure it. We do it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae, these are standard brightness that you can infer distances with. And the universe isn’t slowing down. The universe is accelerating in its expansion, and do you know why? Nobody knows why. Nobody knows why. And you’ll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies, and their expansion, and isn’t it reasonable that whatever’s out there causing the universe to expand is here also, and we just haven’t figured out how to detect it. My friends, suppose a science student from the Commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that deep question: “Where did we come from?” What was before the big bang? To us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. This is what makes us get up and go to work every day is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Bill Nye used many logical fallacies to avoid answering the question: selling the defect as a benefit, false bravado, appeal to emotion, declaring victory, limited scope, misleading vividness, special pleading, and projection.

Persuaders have many ways to avoid answering questions. One is simply ignoring the question. Another is answering a completely different question. Persuaders who are skilled at avoiding answering questions may filibuster. A skilled persuader may use every possible mind-game to keep us from directing them back to the question. When directed back to the question, they may claim we’re censoring them unless they can change the subject to whatever they like. Then the person will continue filibustering to avoid answering the question.

Related:

avoiding the issue

Downward-Spiral Fallacy

Failure to listen to God’s voice and failure to yield in willing submission to His direction

Being willingly ignorant of God’s direction results in a progressively seared conscience. This seared conscience hardens the innermost mind against God and results in less spiritual insight and less submission toward God. These, in turn, lead to more willing ignorance and a downward spiral of a heart that becomes increasingly hardened against God and unwilling to follow God. While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds.

Drug-Addiction Mistake

Enslavement caused by searching for satisfaction in drugs

While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds. We can only find satisfaction as we progressively come into the image and likeness of Christ. ^{(Psalm 17:15)}

Double-Entendre Fallacy

Using word or phrase with two different meanings to state something exactly as planned but indirectly as if not meaning to say it

Example:

“Aren’t you the cool one,” he said to the man who forgot to wear a coat.

In a double-entendre fallacy, everyone, or nearly everyone knows they can understand the statement two different ways and the less obvious is the one intended. A communicator may use double entendre to say something they shouldn’t have said, often something evil. A persuader may use it as a form of hedging. It’s not a fallacy when not used to deceive anyone, and it can be funny without being off-color.

Drawing-a-Negative-Conclusion-from-Affirmative-Premises Fallacy

(a.k.a. Illicit Affirmative)

Drawing a negative conclusion when both premises of a categorical syllogism aren’t also negative

If one or both premises are positive, we can’t use them to prove a negative conclusion.

Example:

Major Premise: Molecules-to-humanity evolution is something every professor must support.

Minor Premise: All professors at this university who don’t fully support molecules-to-humanity evolution will be denied tenure.

Conclusion: Therefore, no professors at this university who oppose teaching molecules-to-humanity evolution will be denied tenure.

That’s obviously false. However, changing the word, “no,” to the word, “all,” in the conclusion would make it valid form and sound reasoning providing the premises are true.

Eclecticism Fallacy

Basing a conclusion on what someone claims is the best evidence from all areas

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: There’s no scientific Law of Biogenesis or Law of Universal Information.

Rocky Rockbuilder: How much more of science would you be willing to exclude just to support a few stories that you prefer to believe?

Sandy Sandbuilder considers that he has chosen the best pieces of knowledge to believe, but his bias forbids anything that conflicts with the sacred cows of pseudo-science. When evolutionists use inductive reasoning to support the stories of molecules-to-humanity evolutionism, they have to deny several scientific and logical laws. They rationalize away the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, The Law of Cause and Effect, and the Law of Universal Information.

Eclecticism claims to select the best evidence from all areas. And yet, eclecticism assumes we know how to select the best. That’s a circular-reference fallacy. We need a way to select evidence objectively. However, We can’t get outside ourselves to be objective. Therefore, we don’t have a way to select the best evidence.

Education-Panacea Fallacy

Believing that education is the answer to life’s problems

Example:

The government needs to put more money into education, and that will solve many problems.

The education-panacea fallacy is problematic. Government-controlled education has become a tool for brainwashing and mind molding. Also, history doesn’t support the claim that education is a panacea. God doesn’t say education is a panacea. The truth will set us free, but education doesn’t guarantee truth. For lack of knowledge, God’s people perish, but God is talking about knowledge of truth. Most institutions of learning teach little, if any, knowledge of truth. If the schools teach false concepts and theories, they educate students into ignorance.

Elephant-Repellent Fallacy

Believing, implying, or saying one thing prevents some other thing, but the other thing doesn’t happen anyway

A false cure based on a false cause for a non-existent problem

Examples:

We need a global government to stop climate change.

To stop the destruction of science and education, we must ban any information about the difference between scientifically observing the present versus making up stories about the distant past.

Persuaders often use the elephant-repellent fallacy to give more power to governments as the principle of the Overton window, a system that uses fear or shock to promote change. Persuaders use fear or shock to open people’s minds until people give up their freedom. Persuaders offer a false promise of security to give people a false hope. However, the false hope says the government will save them if they give up some freedom. We see politicians, educators, and news organizations using this method continually as if they were part of a cabal.

Emotion-Based-Decision-Making-Phenomenon Fallacy

A method of concluding based on feelings and then rationalizing feeling-based logic to make it appear to be using facts and sound logic

Those who sell or market products know buyers don’t decide based on facts. Buyers decide based on emotion. Students decide what to believe based on emotion. While exceptions exist, no one is exempt. We fall victim to our own emotions sometimes.

Emotive-Language Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Emotive Language)

Using emotional language instead of true premises that support a conclusion

Examples:

I don’t believe in the magic man in the sky or fairies or leprechauns.

This statement doesn’t give a premise for disbelief in God but uses emotive language as a basis for reason. Persuaders use emotive language often. We can find it in atheist’s comments and atheist websites. We find it in Christian’s comments and Christian websites, too.

God doesn’t issue a magic decoder ring to interpret the Bible. The human mind is well able to interpret the Bible.

Using the emotive language: “magic decoder ring,” this persuader declares his independence from God. He makes his case for human beings leaning on their own understandings rather than seeking God’s mind and asking the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture.

Related:

loaded-language fallacy

Emphasis Fallacy

(a.k.a. Accent Fallacy, Accent by Emphasis, or Emphatic Fallacy)

Emphasizing a word, thought, or phrase to change the way we understand a statement

Examples of ways to emphasize:

• pace
• pause
• voice inflection
• voice quality
• italics
• bold typeface
• giving more detail
• search engine ranking or even censorship
• social media filtering and censorship
• news filtering
• censorship of any kind
• flashing lights
• neon
• spam

The means of emphasis go from mild methods like pace, pause, and voice inflection to extreme methods like filtering or censorship. Accenting certain words can affect the meaning of a sentence, or accenting certain paragraphs in a book can change the meaning of the book. In the same way, emphasizing certain scientific observations can change the meaning of the observations. Persuaders emphasize selected news and down-play other news to distort the viewers’ impression of reality.

Emphasis-by-Abstraction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Accent by Abstraction)

Changing the meaning of an idea or statement by taking it out of its context

Example:

God didn’t give the Bible as a source of scientific information but rather as an authority on matters of faith and conduct as it plainly says in 2 Timothy 3:15.

The persuader who made this statement was disregarding Scripture and defending disregarding Scripture. He was selling stories about big bangs, billions of years, no six days of Creation, no Genesis Flood, and non-living molecules turning into living people by natural processes. He did it by emphasizing one verse, misrepresenting it, and taking it out of context. Here’s what the verse says out of context:

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ~ 2 Timothy 3:15 Berean Study Bible

Now, let’s look at the persuader’s original claim. The persuader misrepresented the Scripture as he abstracted it. He added ideas to Scripture that aren’t in Scripture and claims the Scripture says the following:

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures that should be ignored when they touch on science or history and which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus and able to do nothing other than that. ~ emphasized and abstracted version

Let’s look at this Scripture in context. We’ll emphasize some of the important words the persuader left out.

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work. ~ 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Berean Study Bible

The persuader used the fallacy of emphasis to limit Scripture to faith and conduct alone. He artificially added that filter to this Scripture and left out the fact that “all Scripture is God-breathed.”

Entertainment-Addiction Mistake

Enslavement caused by searching for satisfaction in entertainment

Many Americans are addicted to entertainment. Humans develop addictions by searching for satisfaction where they can’t find satisfaction. While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds. We can only find satisfaction progressively as the Holy Spirit transforms us into the image and likeness of Christ. ^{(Psalm 17:15)}

Envy Mistake

(a.k.a. Jealousy Fallacy or Covetousness Fallacy)

Deception that causes one person to want what another person has

Deception that causes one person to want another person to lose what that person has

Envy and covetousness are fallacies because they fail to see reality as it is. They don’t realize God has the right and the wisdom to bless according to His will, but human beings don’t always understand God’s decisions.

Epistemic Fallacy

Presenting reality as if it were a concept

Thinking something is a concept when it’s part of reality

A reality thought of as a belief about the reality

The epistemic fallacy pretends part of reality is make-believe. Epistemology deals with ideas or beliefs about what exists. Reality isn’t an idea, concept, or belief. Reality is what exists. The epistemic fallacy confuses reality with concepts, ideas, and beliefs.

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: You follow the Christian religion.

Rocky Rockbuilder: It sounds like you think Christ is a religion rather than a person. I know Christ. I follow Christ. He’s real. He interacts with me constantly. I invite you to know Him.

Sandy: I realize you presuppose the existence of Christ.

Rocky: He reveals Himself to me. I don’t need to presuppose Him.

Persuaders often confuse being with thoughts about being. They confuse something that exists with supposed knowledge about something that exists. Persuaders might interpret statements about being as statements about ideas. Persuaders might interpret statements about existence as statements about beliefs. They confuse reality with concepts of reality. They confuse something that exists with belief about something that exists. They confuse statements about God with statements about beliefs. They confuse God Himself with a belief about God.

The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the universe and our own existence is one that you can’t prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression “agnostic.” You can’t know. I’ll grant you that. ~ Bill Nye

Here Bill changes God’s reality into an idea about a higher power, and he gives us a perfect example of the epistemic fallacy.

Bill’s phrase “You can’t know” is an example of the logical fallacy of assuming a universal negative. Specifically, it’s the claim-of-unknowables fallacy. Bill is claiming we can’t know something. When Bill claims no one can know God, he denies the experience of millions of Christ-followers who know God and to whom God does reveal Himself. Bill committed the logical fallacy of argument from omniscience. He also committed the logical fallacy of amazing familiarity. His claim is also contrary to fact. How do we know it’s contrary to fact? God reveals Himself, His Christ, and His Holy Spirit to us. And when God reveals Himself, He imparts His faith, and His faith is substance and certain proof.

Bill is also claiming not to know God exists. However, by divine revelation, we know God has revealed Himself to every person including Bill. Beyond that, some thinkers refuse to acknowledge God or are willingly ignorant, and these thinkers suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They know, yet they suppress this knowledge. They fake ignorance of God. This fake ignorance convinces them but leaves them with an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Christ is a real person, and He isn’t a theology, theory, concept, idea, or anything like that. He’s the ultimate reality. He’s the truth. Only in knowing Him can we know anything.

And most of all, as I said to you, the Bible says that if you come to God believing that He is, He’ll reveal Himself to you. You’ll know. If you search out the truth, you really want God to show you as you search out the silver and gold, He will show you. He will reveal Himself to you. ~ Ken Ham

Ken Ham knows Jesus Christ personally, and he has a relationship in which Christ speaks to Him through the Bible and creation. Bill Nye implied Ken assumes God’s existence. Bill’s statement reduced Ken’s relationship to a belief in a concept.

Related:

intensional fallacy, hooded-man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, intensional context, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology

Equating-Opposites Fallacy

Making it seem as if two opposites are the same

Persuaders who commit fallacies of equating opposites substitute needless parts for needed parts until all differences disappear.

Examples:

• An internet troll claims Christianity is just like Islam.
• An ungodly scoffer discovers every time he concludes anything, he concludes it based on assumption. Then the scoffer equates opposites. The scoffer claimed God’s revelation is also an assumption. By claiming that, the scoffer equates the opposites of divine revelation and assumption. Revelation is reality, but assumption is make-believe. Revelation is truth, but assumptions consist of lies.

Besides equating opposites, the scoffer is implying a universal negative. The universal negative is “there’s no true divine revelation” or “no one can tell the difference between revelation and assumption,” but either claim would require the scoffer to be all-knowing. Here’s the funny part. The scoffer makes that claim based on assumption. If the scoffer were to make a complete statement, the scoffer would say, “No one can know the difference between revelation and assumption. I know that because I just made it up. Therefore, it must be true.”

Equivocation Fallacy

Using ambiguous expressions to confuse, mislead, or hedge

Examples:

We see evolution happening all the time. It’s a fact.

We know flu viruses evolve from year to year, calling for new vaccines every year. That’s proof that molecules-to-humanity evolution took place.

Evolutionists confuse three meanings of the word “evolution.” “Evolution” can mean information and mechanisms already in the cell that cause the small changes from generation to generation. “Evolution” can mean mutations. Mutations cause information loss. Information loss causes speciation. “Evolution” can mean a story about a one-celled organism becoming more complex by adding new features and abilities over millions of years, a story that claims all life came from a single ancestor. We can observe the first two definitions, but we can’t observe the molecules-to-humanity story. It doesn’t fit with what we can observe. The so-called “evolution” we see are losses of information or rearrangement of existing information. Natural activity never adds new information systems to living organisms. However, natural activities would have to add them for even the smallest step in so-called molecules-to-humanity evolution. Berkeley uses the logical fallacy of equivocation as a method for teaching evolution.

God leads me to pray the prayer of faith for my children, and I have faith in my children they will do what’s right.

This Christian is confusing two types of faith. On the one hand, we have God’s faith that’s a free gift from God. On the other hand, we have human faith based on observation, rationalizing, and wishing. God’s faith is absolute. It comes when God speaks to us and leads us. That’s the faith that gives us access to His grace so He can do His works through us, and His works would include such things as praying the prayer of faith. However, we can self-generate make-believe faith in ourselves, others, institutions, etc.

The Bible tells us to rejoice in hope. We ought to hope that we can be successful in everything we try to do so we can have wealth.

This statement confuses two meanings of the word, hope. The hope we read of in the Bible is a vision of reality given by God. It’s not the human hope-so some thinkers confuse with real hope. When God speaks to us and leads us, He speaks a vision of His hope. He speaks a vision of reality and shows us what He’s going to do. We see who He created us to be in Him. We see the body of Christ as God created it. We also see how we fit into the body of Christ as a particular member. And God tells us what to do right now as a member of this body of Christ. We don’t see it all, but we see just a little glimpse of as much light as we can bear.

Some Types of Equivocation Fallacies:

• bait and switch
• vagueness
• doublespeak
• T. Barnum effect
• sly suggestion
• innuendo
• lexical ambiguity
• syntactic ambiguity
• homonymy
• shingle speech
• use-mention error
• double entendre
• quantifier fallacy
• euphemism

Berkeley’s Evolution 101 http://www.seekfind.net/Evolution_Berkeley_Evolution_101.html

Error-in-Observation Fallacy

Failure to see reality

In scientific observation, making mistaken observations that don’t reflect reality

When an observation conflicts strongly with a worldview, the human mind takes action to avoid the conflict. For instance, the mind may filter observation to match the worldview. Scientists usually challenge and retest errors in observation unless those errors confirm the current bias (settled science) of the majority, in which case, they accept the errors.

Error-in-Sampling Fallacy

Choosing a bad dataset to create a false impression

A persuader who commits a sampling error fallacy presents bad data. The sample group should be statistically the same as the entire group. The persuader uses a sample group statistically different from the entire group. Some persuaders use polls to change public opinion rather than to find out what’s happening. One method persuaders use to skew these polls is selecting samples that don’t reflect the group the poll claims to research.

Sometimes persuaders don’t have any data or ignore data. A common example is where one person claims a certain result is much more likely. The term “more likely” implies a probability, but the persuader is basing his or her comment on gut feeling. There’s no data, formula, or calculation involved in the phantom probability.

Related:

statistical fallacy

Escape-to-the-Future Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument to the Future, False-Prophecy Fallacy)

Supporting a claim with evidence that will “surely be discovered in the future”

The escape to the future fallacy is a variation of appeal to false prophecy. This fallacy may take the form of claiming science will discover the solution needed to save a favored theory. Escape to the future fallacy is a form of false prophecy. All prophecy isn’t false, but all true prophecy comes from God.

Escape-via-Ignorance Fallacy

Saying other people or circumstances could make the case when a case can’t be made rationally

Saying evidence exists, but the debater can’t articulate it

Examples:

I don’t know the Bible, but, if I did, I could find verses in there that would prove my point.

I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know the answer to your question, but the scientists know. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be so sure of themselves in believing in evolution [meaning the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story].

If my teacher were here, she could show you that no one can know anything for certain.

We can say, “Give me some time to do a little research and get back to you with an answer.” We can check with knowledgeable brothers and sisters in Christ before answering. These aren’t fallacies. However, the examples given above are trust-me fallacies.

Essentializing Fallacy

Believing what now exists was always as it is or will always remain as it is

Examples:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics had to be in place in the Garden of Eden, or nothing would have worked.

No one can test a statement like that. We have no clue since God hasn’t revealed it. God told us about some trouble that would come after Adam and Eve obeyed the serpent rather than obeying God, but God didn’t tell us about everything that changed.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics will work in the new heavens and the new earth just as it works today.

How could we know that?

Etymological Fallacy

An argument based on the meaning of a word when the meaning of the word has changed

Example:

That sexist idiot said I was hysterical. I can’t believe anyone would be so boldly anti-woman.

A political candidate committed this fallacy in a political attack against her political opponent who had used the word “hysterical” in its current meaning of showing extreme emotion. She had to research for the etymology. The word “hysterical” comes from a Greek word that means suffering in the womb. The woman reasoned that it’s sexist since it came from this root eons ago. But that’s not what it means today. And yet it was a clever way to claim offense because of a micro-aggression.

Arguments about the Bible frequently fall into this fallacy. These arguments could also include translation errors in various versions of the Bible that sometimes aren’t close to the original Greek or Hebrew meanings.

Euphemism Fallacy

A softer, vaguer, or even pleasant expression used for something evil, vile, negative, or unpleasant. Using words to give the impression that evil is good

Examples:

• “pro-choice” instead of “pro-killing-unborn-babies”
• “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby.”
• “quantitative easing” instead of “printing money”
• “peaceful protestors” instead of “violent rioters”
• “made a mistake” instead of “sinned against God”
• “principled” instead of “hardened in a sinful lifestyle.”

Evolution-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

Claiming molecules-to-humanity evolution caused a certain effect without proving it

Example:

The wide variety of living organisms is the result of millions of years of evolution.

The evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy follows the same logic as the God-of-the-gaps fallacy or the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. All three of these fallacies claim a default position, but they can’t rationally explain why the position is the default.

It’s called “of the gaps” because evolutionists automatically insert evolution as the cause or reason. If we don’t know what caused it, then evolution caused it. If we don’t know the reason, then evolution is the reason. It’s a golden-hammer fallacy in which evolution becomes the golden hammer used to solve every problem. The logic follows the form: “I don’t know what caused this; therefore evolution caused it.” In this way, evolutionists can falsely claim many independent lines of evidence support the stories of evolutionism. Persuaders use the same golden-hammer fallacy to shoehorn many independent observations into the stories of evolutionism.

Most apologists who commit the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy only imply evolution is the default position. Rather than being specific, they say no naturalistic explanation outside of evolution exists for some of what we see. The theory of evolution would be magic if it happened. However, it removes God. Since it removes God, it’s OK. Naturalism can work magical events we don’t understand. Since they can’t explain it, it must be naturalism. This, of course, reflects the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Exception:

If we can give a sound reason for the default position, we don’t commit the “of-the-gaps” fallacy. A sound reason has a true premise and valid deductive form. While stories like naturalism and evolutionism can’t have a true premise and valid deductive form, God is real. He reveals Himself, and He reveals truth. Without divine revelation, no knowledge is possible because of the ungodly thinking problem. However, divine revelation makes knowledge possible. It makes a true premise possible, providing that God reveals the premise. Therefore, when God says He did something, we don’t commit the God-of-the-gaps fallacy by saying it.

God says He created the heavens, earth, seas, and everything in them in six days. God says He created Adam on the sixth day. Therefore, we can say God did what He says He did without committing any fallacy. Then, if we point out the failure of ungodly thinkers to account for various aspects of reality within their evolutionistic worldview, we’re just urging them to open their minds. They don’t have a true premise and their story conflicts with reality. We’re pointing that out. We don’t use their problem as proof of God. We don’t have to. God has revealed Himself and the fact that He created the universe, so we don’t have to depend on fallacies. We urge them to know Jesus Christ and acknowledge His revelation so they can know this firsthand for themselves.

Related:

didit fallacy

Exaggeration Fallacy

(a.k.a. Stretching the Truth or Overstatement)

A point that would be true except for adding a lie or unsupported assertion

Example:

these elements that we all know on the periodic table of chemicals and the ones we don’t know were created when stars explode . . . Hans Bethe who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the process by which stars create all these elements. ~ Bill Nye

Bethe didn’t discover anything but just proposed the idea that nuclear fusion powers stars. Bill stretched that into “discovering the process by which stars create all the elements.” Scientists don’t know stars create all the elements. Nucleosynthesis theory doesn’t really explain the origin of the elements.

Snow ice forms over the winter as snowflakes fall and are crushed down by subsequent layers, they’re crushed together, entrapping the little bubbles, and the little bubbles must needs be the ancient atmosphere. There’s nobody running around with a hypodermic needle, you know, squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles, and we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. ~ Bill Nye

Bill makes it sound like scientists counted these layers. They didn’t. The scientists didn’t actually observe or count distinct rings. And we can’t measure the ancientness of the atmosphere in the bubbles.

Exception-that-Proves-the-Rule Fallacy

(a.k.a. Exception-that-Tests-the-Rule Fallacy, or Exceptio-Probat-Regulam Fallacy)

Using an exception to a conclusion (rule) as evidence for the conclusion (rule)

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: All real scientists embrace the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Really? I’ve heard of scientists and engineers who are doing important work who don’t buy into the story.

Sandy: That’s the exception that proves the rule.

Rocky: Thousands of them work doing science.

Sandy: Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. All real scientists embrace the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story.

Exclusive-“Or” Fallacy

Confusing “or” with “exclusive or”

Changing the meaning of “or” during reasoning

Example:

Christ speaks through Scripture or some other means. Christ speaks through Scripture. Therefore, Christ doesn’t speak through any other means.

With an inclusive “or,” both choices can be true. The first premise has a non-exclusive “or.” However, this persuader treats it as if it were an exclusive “or.”

An exclusive “or” means only one choice can be true, and, if one choice is true, then all other choices must be false. The word “or” can also be inclusive. When “or” is inclusive, the choices are all possible but not necessarily true.

Related:

equivocation fallacy

Exclusive-Premises Fallacy

A categorical syllogism with both premises negative

One premise of a valid categorical syllogism can be negative at the most. If more than one premise is negative, the syllogism is invalid and the logic unsound. No one can know anything using unsound logic.

Invalid Forms:

No X are Y. Some Y are not-Z. Therefore, some Z are not-X.

No X are Y. No Y are Z. Therefore, no Z are X.

The conclusion and premises may be true, but the logic isn’t sound. In other words, by this logic, we can’t know the conclusion is true.

No Christ-followers are consistently ungodly thinkers. No Hindus are Christ-followers. Therefore, no Hindus are consistently ungodly thinkers.

This logic isn’t sound because both premises are negative. Sound logic needs at least one true premise.

Exclusivity Fallacy

Presenting a limited number of choices when other choices are available, then reaching a conclusion that would require both exhaustive and mutually exclusive choices

Presenting choices as exclusive when we could choose more than one option, then drawing a conclusion that would require both exhaustive and mutually exclusive choices

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: We can line up plants and animals according to similarity. This similarity is proof that molecules-to-humanity evolution happened.

Rocky Rockbuilder: So you see no other explanation for the similarity of design in living organisms? What if God designed them and made them similar for His purposes? Is that a possibility?

Sandy Sandbuilder has made evolutionism the only possible explanation when it’s not the only explanation. Creation by God makes more sense of the data.

Fallacy Abuse:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Jesus paid for the sins of humanity. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through Scripture, personal leading, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. He says there’s no other way to approach the Father except through Jesus. Every other entity called ‘god’ is a false god. The triune God is the only true God, and He’s exclusive. You either receive Him, or you don’t. No other so-called “god” will do.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Congratulations! You have just committed the exclusivity fallacy. You are an exclusivist.

Sandy Sandbuilder committed fallacy abuse, not understanding the nature of the exclusivity fallacy. All truth excludes whatever is false. Since no one has any other way to come to the Father but by Jesus Christ, He’s the exclusive way. Rocky stated the situation accurately without emotion. Jesus Christ is the way exclusive of all others. There can be no other way because God says Jesus is the only way. Divine revelation is the only way to truth. And truth is always exclusive.

Existential-Instantiation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Existential Fallacy)

Referring to an entity not known to exist

We haven’t established that X exists. (X could be anything.) We haven’t instantiated X, so we haven’t established the fact the X exists.

Example:

None of the people are saved who don’t know God exists. All people who aren’t saved are destined for hell. Therefore, some people are going to hell just because they don’t know God exists.

This persuader makes several assumptions, but we’ll focus on existential instantiation. The persuader assumes some people don’t know God exists. Since God reveals Himself to every person through the things He created, the people mentioned in the conclusion amount to exactly zero people. The premises would be true if God didn’t reveal Himself and the entire Godhead to every person. But all people know God exists. God reveals Himself and the entire Godhead to every person. The logic fails because the disbeliever created a class of people (people who don’t know God exists) using language, but no such class of people exists.

In the language of the fallacy, the persuader hasn’t established that X exists. (In this case, X represents people who don’t know God exists.) The persuader hasn’t instantiated X, hasn’t established that any such group exists. Exactly zero people don’t know God exists. As God says, He reveals Himself to every person through the things He created. Of course, those dedicated to not knowing God will howl about this and claim they really don’t know God exists. However, God says they suppressed the truth of His being in their deceptive trickery. They work hard to trick their minds into disbelieving God. Eventually, the self-hypnosis becomes a dark cloud on their thinking. As God says it, “Their senseless minds are darkened.”

Experiential-Blank-Argument Fallacy

Claiming that no one will ever have a certain experience

Asserting an experiential blank is asserting a universal negative.

Example:

Death isn’t a problem because we won’t be around to experience it.

A persuader makes this unsupported assertion. But how would the persuader know the assertion is true? It’s also an assertion contrary to fact since God says we’ll be around to experience death and we’ll be around to experience what comes after death. Once again, it’s divine revelation versus arbitrary assumptions.

Experimenter-Bias Fallacy

Being swayed by presuppositions, opinions, or worldviews when a measurement or observation allows for interpretation

Experimenter bias is especially a problem when dealing with theoretical science or historical science since no one can test the results of the interpretation and storytelling in these cases. Science is pragmatic, but it requires testing the results of conclusions; however, we can’t go back in time to test the results of conclusions about the distant past.

Theoretical science tries to guess something we can’t repeatedly observe. That’s why experimenter bias can easily impact theoretical science. Experimenter bias takes many forms. For example, an experimenter may discard evidence that doesn’t fit a theory, or an experimenter might make up just-so stories to explain away evidence. The experimenter may use vague language when reporting observations that conflict with the theory.

Extended-Analogy Fallacy

Stretching a comparison beyond the point of the comparison

Nothing is identical to anything else unless it’s the same thing. We may compare two things using analogy. However, our comparison breaks down as we extend the analogy. If we extend an analogy beyond its limits, the analogy will stop making sense at a certain point.

As a Straw-Man Fallacy:

Rocky Rockbuilder: What’s happening today with evolution is like what happened in Galileo’s day when scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo disagreed with the other scientists, so they went to the government to shut him down. Today, evolutionists disagree with creationists, so they go to the government to shut creationists down. The scientists of Galileo’s day told stories about a mysterious substance they called “ether.” They used this fabled “ether” to explain the strange movements of planets and stars that conflicted with known laws of science. Since the behavior of the planets and stars didn’t make sense when they assumed the earth was the center, they needed “ether” to make the math work out. Today, evolutionists invented mysterious dark matter and dark energy to explain observations and scientific facts that conflict with the big bang story.

Sandy Sandbuilder: That’s a false analogy. You’re saying they rejected Galileo, and he was right. They’re now rejecting me. That proves I’m right.

Sandy Sandbuilder extended Rocky’s analogy and turned it into a fallacy. However, Rocky’s analogy is sound as he stated it.

As a Faulty-Comparison Fallacy:

Evolution [molecules to humanity] is a scientific theory. Gravity is a scientific theory. Therefore, denying evolution is like denying the Law of Gravity.

Evolution [molecules to humanity] is a scientific theory. Gravity is a scientific theory. Therefore we know evolution as solidly as we know the Law of Gravity.

The persuaders who made these statements tried to extend an analogy comparing two theories. They extended this analogy to compare a scientific theory with a scientific law. However, a theory isn’t like a law in the way the persuaders claim.

Statements like these play on the ignorance of those who listen to them. No one saw molecules coming to life and turning into humans over millions of years. No one saw one kind of living organism turning into another kind of living organism. No one has ever seen these in the fossil record.

We see variations within kinds of living organisms but nothing in between. We can’t observe what evolutionists call the “tree of life.” We observe an orchard of individual trees separated at about the level of families. Each tree in this orchard is a created kind. Each kind of organism can vary, but cats are still cats and dogs are still dogs. Therefore, we can’t observe the story of evolutionism.

However, we can observe gravity. We can test the Law of Gravity. No one can observe the various competing theories of gravity, but theories aren’t the Law of Gravity. The Law simply describes what we observe about gravity. There’s no law of molecules-to-humanity evolution because there’s nothing that we can observe in the past.

Radiometry consists of observation in the present. We use radiometric dating methods to observe in the present. Therefore, the science of radiometric dating is as solid as radiometry.

This statement compares radiometry to radiometric dating methods. However, the comparison isn’t rational. The persuader who made this statement has either extended a rational analogy or created an irrational analogy from scratch. However, radiometry measures radiation. It’s the scientific-observation part of radiometric dating methods. Here’s the problem. Radiometric dating methods interpret the measurements of radiometry using assumptions. Radiometric dating depends on assumptions that aren’t part of radiometry. Therefore, radiometric dating methods aren’t as solid as radiometry. Radiometric dating methods don’t work consistently on rocks of known age. Scientists can’t validate these methods.

Related:

faulty-analogy fallacy

Extension Fallacy

Exaggerating a statement or argument then refuting the exaggeration instead of attempting to refute the real statement or argument

Example:

So in a way even my science books are forced to take a stance, not against posh theologians who accept evolution but surely the absolute majority of religious people in the world who literally believe that every species was separately created and even, in the case of the Abrahamic religions, believe that Adam and Eve were created 6,000 years ago. Chemists and other scientists don’t have to battle with that. ~ Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins claims creationists believe in the fixity of the species, but that’s not true. Creationists see variation within kinds of living organisms. Here’s their problem. They only see losses of information that lead to speciation. In this case, Dawkins used extension as a form of straw-man argument.

External-Inconsistency Fallacy

Claims that don’t match surrounding reality

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Evolution is an observable fact of science.

Rocky Rockbuilder: When you say “evolution,” if you mean molecules to humanity over millions of years, you would have to observe sudden development of complete coded information systems. Each coded information system would have to pop into existence with all three needed parts. Each one would need the coded information plus the systems to maintain and execute the information. Random happenings would need to code the information in the language the cell recognizes. We can check your claim against observed reality. No one has observed coded information systems popping into existence, so it’s not an observable fact of science.

In the external-inconsistency fallacy, the external world doesn’t match the claim. While we can’t check some claims, we can check many claims against reality. For instance, Hindu scriptures claim the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. We can check that. We find it’s externally inconsistent.

You can check the history in the Bible against external reality and find it matches external reality. That doesn’t prove the history in the Bible happened. It proves the Bible doesn’t commit the external-inconsistency fallacy. And when someone claims the Bible says something, you can check the claim by reading the Bible. That’s an external consistency check since the Bible is external to the claim about the Bible.

You can check the history in the Bible against the opinions of most scientists and find it doesn’t match some of those opinions, but those opinions aren’t external reality. They’re merely external opinion rather than external reality. You can check those opinions against external reality and find those opinions aren’t always consistent with external reality. For instance, we don’t see matter and energy forming themselves into universes from nothing or some unknown something. We don’t observe life forming from non-living matter. And we don’t find one kind of living organism turning into another kind of living organism. Therefore, evolution-myths aren’t confirmed by reality.

Fading-Affect-Bias Fallacy

(a.k.a FAB)

The human tendency to remember positive autobiographical experiences more than negative autobiographical experiences

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. We are more likely to remember ourselves as better than we were. We tend to think we were more rational and righteous than we were. We also tend to think others were worse than they were.

Failure-to-Consider-the-Logical-Consequences-of-an-Assertion Fallacy

Neglecting to account for consequences of a certain thought, word, or action

Many claims seem to make sense when isolated, yet no statement stands alone. Parts of reality interrelate. Relationships and interdependencies exist. That’s why we consider the consequences of a claim. We consider its effect on other parts of reality if the claim were true. Looking at the logical consequences helps us assess the rationality of the claim.

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. ~ 1 Corinthians 15:14 Berean Study Bible

Some people were claiming Christ didn’t rise from the dead. Paul pointed out the consequences of their theory.

. . . if the human brain is merely the product of random chemical accidents, why should we trust its reasoning? The preconditions of intelligibility make sense only in a biblical worldview. ~ Robert Gurney

Robert Gurney is pointing out an inconsistency in the ungodly worldview. If ungodly thinkers were consistent, they would ignore all their own logic. Even skeptics think they can reason to their skeptical philosophy, but they have no rational way to do so.

I realize the limitations caused by the Münchausen trilemma. But you have the same problem. When you say God reveals something to you, you’re taking divine revelation as an axiom.

Ungodly thinkers eventually realize they can’t have a true premise. They suddenly realize they can’t rationally make any claim. Rather than dealing with this crippling problem, they use the you-too fallacy. They claim those who follow Christ have the same problem, but they would have to know the inner spiritual experience of every Christian to make that claim. And yet, they just discovered they can’t know anything. They’re making the “you too” claim, but they can’t rationally make any claim without a true premise. And they can’t have a true premise.

In the absence of a true premise, they use a made-up premise to make the “you too” accusation. They say you too have the same problem, but they’re just making it up. They must first solve their own problem before they can make any statement. When faced with that consequence, they usually make the unsupported claim their unsupported claims are true. In other words, they claim whatever they make up is automatically true. And yet, they can’t have a true premise to prove their unsupported claim, so they’re right back where they started.

Gurney, https://creation.com/naturalism-vs-reality

Failure-to-Distinguish-Reality-from-Worldview Fallacy

(a.k.a. Failure to Discern between Reality and Worldview)

Thinking inner representations and beliefs are reality

A worldview seems more real than reality. Every person must deal with it since all people have worldviews. Only God can shine light on this distinction. However, anyone can ask God, and God will reveal the distinction. This ability to discern is part of spiritual maturity. Maturity comes little by little as God’s child grows in Christ, and it comes through yielding to the Holy Spirit and allowing Him to do His works through us. Doing whatever we want leads to less maturity and less discernment.

Failure-to-Elucidate Fallacy

Defining a word or concept so it’s harder to understand than the word or concept itself

A definition that doesn’t describe the word or concept in a realistic way

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Natural selection is the survival of the fittest and the method by which living organisms advance to become increasingly complex.

Rocky Rockbuilder: How does this work to produce evolution?

Sandy: Natural selection works with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Darwin had it all figured out, but most people don’t understand it. You see, a bit of DNA duplicates itself. Then it’s mutated. This mutation leads to a change that might be better suited to survival or less suited. Then it’s selected for naturally, in other words, the fittest survive and the others don’t, so the survivors survive. But sometimes, there’s migration, and that’s gene flow, and that can work too. Then there’s genetic drift since some die without reproducing, and others get to reproduce, and those who die without reproducing don’t pass their genes along to the next generation. So that’s how it works to produce evolution.

No explanation of any supposed mechanism for evolutionism is rational. However, this one fails to elucidate. It doesn’t make the idea clear. When the idea isn’t stated clearly, it’s difficult to point out the specific flaws in the idea. It’s a smokescreen. When anyone clearly states the supposed mechanisms of evolutionism, they expose the obvious irrationality.

Failure-to-Make-the-Necessary-Observations Fallacy

Concluding without the necessary observations

Example:

The Theory of Evolution is a matter of science.

Sometimes a theory exists when no one can make the necessary observations as is the case with theories about what happened in the distant past. The people selling these theories fail to make the necessary observations because they can’t make the necessary observations. How could they?

All scientists believe in the Theory of Evolution.

The thinker concluded without making the observations needed to conclude. Had the thinker taken time to look into the matter, the thinker would have known many scientists reject the molecules-to-humanity story even though they accept variations within created kinds of living organisms. The General Theory of Evolution is a story about molecules coming to life and turning into people over millions of years. It assumes variations within kinds lead naturally to the stories of molecules turning into people over millions of years.

Thinkers fail to make the necessary observations because of groupthink, message control, carelessness, lack of access, or presuppositions. These fallacies keep them from considering various possibilities.

Related:

refusing-to-look-at-the-evidence fallacy

Failure-to-Look-at-Both-Sides Fallacy

(a.k.a. Audiatur Et Altera Pars)

Considering only one side of an issue

Examples:

We cannot even consider the Bible when deciding ethical matters here at the university.

We can’t possibly allow school children to hear about both Creation and evolution. They can only hear about evolution, or they’ll get confused.

Persuaders who commit the audiatur-et-altera-pars fallacy give other sides no voice. They dismiss certain sides. They don’t consider conflicting information. They may just use a summary dismissal.

Here’s a twist on this fallacy. A persuader may present a straw-man argument of the other side(s) of a controversy. Then the persuader compares the favored side and the distorted straw man of the disfavored side. This way, persuaders can give the illusion of open-mindedness when they have closed their minds. Persuaders may also imply the disfavored side is irrational.

We find most universities, museums, and news agencies operate under this fallacy as part of their policies.

Failure-to-Observe-because-of-a-Closed-Mind Fallacy

Neglecting to inspect, consider, observe, test, or otherwise evaluate because an accepted paradigm closes the mind

Failure-to-State-Assumptions Fallacy

(a.k.a. Hidden Assumptions or Unspoken Assumptions)

Assuming without recognizing the assumptions

Not realizing a conclusion depends on one or more assumptions

Making claims based on assumptions without admitting the claims are based on assumptions

Examples:

Evolution is scientifically verifiable and requires no assumptions.

All scientific theories are dependent on certain assumptions, yet spokespersons for those theories often ignore or hide those assumptions. When we think about theories, we need to uncover all the assumptions and stories. The theory falls apart without them. If we don’t disclose these assumptions and stories, the discussion is irrational.

We need to follow morality based on kindness. Therefore, we can’t say certain forms of sexual behavior are sinful.

Ungodly thinkers often speak of morality or ethics, but they seldom admit they base every thought they have about morality or ethics on made-up stuff. Suppose they admitted they were just making it up? Only God can establish morality. He reveals it through Scripture and writes His laws on our hearts.

We prefer to make up our own morality rather than following God’s order. In our morality, all forms of sexual behavior are good and right. And any statement that conflicts with our opinion is evil. We base our opinion on making it up.

That wouldn’t convince too many people.

We must base discussions of morality or ethics on either assumptions or divine revelation. If we don’t disclose the source, either assumptions or divine revelation, the discussion is irrational. Persuaders bury or hide assumptions. Assumptions happen naturally in the human mind without conscious effort. We don’t usually think about our own assumptions. We don’t like to think about them. We’re likely to think of them as being part of reality, which they are not. So, we often fail to think about them consciously or admit them.

In a failure-to-state-assumptions fallacy, a persuader states an argument while hiding the assumptions on which he builds his argument. The persuader may be unaware of the assumptions. Alternately, the persuader may present the assumptions as if they were facts. Persuaders don’t want to know they base their thinking on assumptions.

Assumptions consist of made-up stuff, and making up stuff is a form of lying. Therefore, believing made-up stuff is irrational. Ungodly persuaders base their thinking on made-up stuff and use smokescreen fallacies to hide the weakness of their thinking.

Failure-to-State-Conclusions Fallacy

Giving the reasoning without openly stating the conclusion

Example:

. . . on CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. We don’t normally have these anywhere in the world except here. Natural laws that applied in the past apply now. That’s why they’re natural laws. That’s why we embrace them. That’s how we made all these discoveries that enable all this remarkable technology. So, CSI is a fictional show, but it’s based absolutely on real people doing real work. When you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past. You trust those clues, you embrace them, and you move forward to convict somebody. ~ Bill Nye

Bill doesn’t state his conclusion, which makes it harder to evaluate his logic. Is he admitting courts sometimes convict innocent people? Is he saying guessing makes technology?

Although persuaders don’t always state conclusions, they usually imply them. Failure to state conclusions is one way of using innuendo as a hedge.

Failure-to-State-Position Fallacy

Not revealing one’s own position to protect one’s own position

Examples:

I’m neutral and have no position. I just have never seen enough evidence to know God exists.

I’m neutral and have no position. I just have never seen enough evidence to know the Genesis Flood occurred.

I’m neutral and have no position. I just have never seen enough evidence to know God created the heavens and the earth in the way we can read about it in the Bible.

The failure-to-state-position fallacy has become a favorite of ungodly thinkers who, claiming to be neutral and to have no position, troll Christian discussion groups looking for someone to debate. Of course, they insist on a one-sided debate with the Christian defending his or her beliefs while the ungodly thinker claims to have no position to defend. However, no person trolls discussion groups if they don’t have a position. Ungodly thinkers use this insincere and hypocritical tactic because they know they can’t defend their ungodly thinking.

However, if we have a true premise, we don’t have to worry about this particular insincere game. We don’t have to hide our position. We receive our faith from Christ as He speaks to us. He speaks through Scripture and Scripture can’t be broken. He also speaks to us through every way mentioned in Scripture. Therefore, we have a true premise in the divine revelation. We openly tell the disbeliever we know Christ and He leads, teaches, and corrects us moment by moment. We tell the disbeliever that he or she doesn’t have to take our word for it since every person who seeks Christ finds Christ. If the disbeliever refuses even to consider seeking Christ after we’ve explained it and how simple it is, the disbeliever has exposed his or her anti-Christ position.

Failure-to-State-Premises Fallacy

Not giving the proof of a claim

Presenting premises not known to be true, thus, not stating the proof of the proof

Example:

I know [molecules-to-humanity] evolution is a fact because of the evidence.

In this case, the evolutionist has shown no evidence nor has the evolutionist defined the term “evidence.” The evolutionist doesn’t define “evidence” as proof. Instead, the evolutionist defines “evidence” as interpretations. The evolutionist bases those interpretations on evolutionistic biases. The biases infer molecules-to-humanity evolutionism.

“Infer” is a waffle word for “conclude.” To conclude seems conclusive. To infer is to express an opinion. However, any persuader should prove an inference or conclusion using sound logic. Sound logic must have a true premise. However, no evolutionist can prove the story of molecules-to-humanity evolution using a true premise.

I didn’t make a claim. I’m just questioning your claim. You have the burden of proof.

Failure to state premises doesn’t disprove a claim, but it does bring up the following question: “What makes you think so?” Of course, failure to state premises isn’t always a malicious fallacy since time doesn’t always allow for stating all premises. However, when a persuader fails to state premises, the persuader fails to prove the conclusion.

Persuaders often state premises without proving them. They fail to state the premise for the premise. They argue in an infinite regression of unproven premises. If a persuader doesn’t state a true premise, the persuader commits this fallacy. The persuader hasn’t supported the conclusion.

Students who believe a teacher’s premise without absolute proof are blindly trusting. They haven’t proved anything to themselves, but they’ve allowed someone to manipulate them.

Fait-Accompli Tactic

(a.k.a. It’s Easier to Ask Forgiveness than Permission)

A one-sided decision

A manipulative practice to get one’s own way by going ahead without permission

Example:

Honey, forget it. It’s water over the dam. Yes, I bought myself a new boat without talking to you about it, and I’m sorry sweetie. I understand you’re concerned about the budget and making the payments, but we can’t do anything about it now. Sorry.

A manipulator takes action without agreement. That’s fait accompli. It means “thing accomplished.” Usually, the fait accompli can’t be undone. Then the manipulator presents the result with the attitude of, “Now, I’ve done it; what are you going to do about it?” The tactic destroys trust, which destroys relationships. If the manipulator uses fait accompli to justify the manipulative act, then it’s a fallacy.

Fake-Consensus Fallacy

(a.k.a. False Majority or Phantom Consensus)

Falsely claiming consensus (or majority) for committing a bandwagon fallacy

Persuaders who commit fake-consensus fallacies claim a consensus or majority supports a certain conclusion, but they’re just making it up since no such consensus or majority exists. They may erroneously think a consensus exists. They may be talking about a consensus won by intimidating or removing dissenters. They may have a fake consensus achieved through other acts of terrorism and bullying. If the bullies use intimidation to control, they can enforce silence, but silence doesn’t equal agreement.

Another way to achieve false consensus is using an adaptation of the no-true-scientist fallacy to filter out all who disagree. The persuader claims those who disagree aren’t true scientists. Once the persuader gets rid of everyone who disagrees using this fallacy, the next step is to claim everyone agrees. And we see evolutionists using this tactic. Irrationally, they claim those who don’t believe the evolutionism-myth aren’t real scientists, which leaves only those who believe in the stories of evolutionism. So their reasoning goes like this:

All who believe the stories of evolutionism believe the stories of evolutionism. Only those who believe the stories of evolutionism are scientists. Therefore, all scientists believe the stories of evolutionism. This universal belief among scientists verifies the stories of evolutionism. Therefore, no one can question evolutionism, and it’s settled science.

Even if a true consensus exists, this consensus proves nothing. Using consensus to prove any conclusion is a bandwagon fallacy. Popularity can’t prove truth.

Fake-Ignorance-of-God Fallacy

Claiming or implying a lack of knowledge of God’s existence

This implication or claim of ignorance is contrary to fact since God says He makes Himself known to all people through the things He created. He also says some people refuse to acknowledge Him, and they’ve suppressed the truth in deceitful trickery. Consider all the fallacies and mental gymnastics ungodly thinkers use to keep themselves from acknowledging God. God also reveals they also know a lot about God’s will. God reveals His will to them. By disobeying God, they sear their consciences—they continue to repeatedly sear their consciences until they’re much less sensitive to God’s leading. Then God turns them over to their own reprobate minds, so they do those things that result in God’s judgment.

Fake ignorance is deceptive even to the person who’s faking ignorance of God because it’s a shield against God. With a shield like that, any mention of God feels unreal and can even feel offensive. However, every person knows God exists, yet some people resist seeking Him and recoil at even the possibility of finding Him. In extreme cases, they falsely accuse God, while they deny His existence at the same time.

Fake-Precision Fallacy

(a.k.a. Over Precision, False Precision, Misplaced Precision, or Spurious Accuracy)

Thinking statistics give more accuracy than the data allows

Examples:

We know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Scientists can’t rationally calculate this precision with the methods and math they have. However, a statistic with this level of accuracy implies a high level of confidence. If we look into the data more carefully, we see several assumptions on which scientists base this math. Changing those assumptions can change this supposed age drastically. If we can’t trust the assumptions, we can’t trust the math. We can’t trust the assumptions since assumptions consist of made-up stuff.   scientific calculations of the age of the earth always use axiomatic-thinking fallacies, so they’re meaningless.

We know the earth is 6,349.5 years old.

Taking the information that God is giving us through the Bible, we can only roughly estimate the time from Adam to Christ using genealogies. It’s divine revelation, but God doesn’t get that specific. We know God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and God provided the genealogies to calculate the time from Adam to Christ. However, we have to assume some numbers in the calculation. Depending on what we assume, we can calculate slightly longer or shorter times. We can also calculate the time from Christ to the present within a few years but not exactly.

If we read Scripture as it’s written, we have a young earth, but not with the precision in the example. No one has observed evidence for the old-earth stories. Speculations exist. Some scientists calculate an old earth using circular reasoning. Scripture doesn’t hint at an old earth. Even so, we can’t deny the possibility God could have done something that Scripture doesn’t hint at without leaving any scientific evidence. It’s possible. It just isn’t worth the time to think about it.

We can’t estimate the age of the universe. God hasn’t told us how He got distant starlight to the earth. Using Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, some scientists developed a cosmology with a young earth and stars billions of years older. God could have caused billions of years to pass in distant space while no time passed on earth during the Creation week using relativity. However, God didn’t say He did it that way. We would have to speculate to say it happened. We can rationally say it’s a better theory with fewer assumptions and less extreme assumptions than the big bang story.

Some people speculate the first few days of the Creation week were billions of years long, but beyond being speculative, this story doesn’t work scientifically or logically. It also disrespects the language of Scripture by playing with the Hebrew word “yom.” The word “yom” is just like the English word “day.” “Day” can mean an age or it can mean a 24-hour period. We understand it by context. If your contractor says, “I’ll finish your task in six days, you know he doesn’t mean six eons of time. He means six 24-hour periods. But if he says, “In my father’s day, carpenters had more skill,” you know he doesn’t mean a 24-hour period when he uses the word “day.” You know by the context.

Others speculate about a prior creation between the first and second verse of Scripture, but severe problems arise with this speculation. And yet, all speculation is a problem since it adds to God’s words.

If God thinks it’s important for us to know the exact amount of time that passed since Creation, He’s able to provide the information. Meanwhile, there’s no need to commit fallacies of false precision.

Sometimes, just saying one cause is more likely than another is false precision. When someone makes a statement about likelihood or probability, ask to see the calculations and the source of the statistical data. You’ll almost always find they haven’t calculated anything, and there’s no real data. This vague statement is a statistical fallacy that avoids specific numbers and implies a way of knowing when no such way of knowing exists.

Watch Radioactive Dating is Flawed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AomTKRLB_4

Fallacious Abstraction

A quote, observation, experiment, event, or part of reality taken out of context so it results in distortion

Examples:

• quotes taken out of context or embellished
• observations taken out of context or embellished
• experiences taken out of context or embellished

If we take something out of context, we omit certain related information. If we embellish, we add information that no one observed, heard, experienced, or knew. Embellishing consists of adding some form of made-up stuff. All scientific models are abstractions, and language forces abstraction since we can’t say everything at once. When we abstract we try to look at part of reality while we filter out the rest of reality. When we abstract, we always distort in the sense that we take part of reality out of context. It’s always a fallacy to confuse an abstraction with reality.

Fallacist’s Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Logicam, Appeal to Logic, Argument to Logic, Bad-Reasons Fallacy, Fallacy Fallacy, Escape-to-Fallacy Fallacy, Appeal to Fallacy, or Argument from Fallacy)

Asserting that a fallacy committed by someone who holds a certain view necessarily proves this view false

Asserting a certain conclusion is false because an argument presented to support it contained a fallacy

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: The reason I believe in Jesus Christ is I know Him personally. He teaches me the history in the Bible is accurate. It’s just common sense the universe couldn’t possibly have created itself.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Just because you can’t imagine a way the universe could have created itself doesn’t mean the universe didn’t create itself. You’ve committed a fallacy. Therefore, God didn’t create anything.

Rocky Rockbuilder committed a fallacy. Sandy Sandbuilder spotted that fallacy by Rocky. Rocky claimed the universe couldn’t have created itself but merely appealed to common sense as proof. Appeal to common sense is a fallacy. However, Rocky also gave a sound reason to believe the history in the Bible is correct. The premise of this reason is divine revelation. By selective refutation, Sandy ignored the sound reasoning and only addressed the unsound reasoning. However, the unsound reasoning doesn’t cancel the sound reasoning.

Fallacy Abuse

(a.k.a. False Fallacy or Phantom Fallacy)

Claiming that something is a fallacy when it’s not a fallacy

Examples:

You’re claiming God reveals Himself to you. That’s an assertion contrary-to-fact fallacy because there is no god.

How could anyone prove “there is no God?”

You’re committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy since you’re saying God created the universe and everything in it.

The God-of-the-gaps fallacy is usually a phantom fallacy and fallacy abuse. That’s what we see in this example. We know, by divine revelation, that God created the universe and everything in it, so it’s not a God-of-the-gaps fallacy but a revealed fact. The God-of-the-gaps fallacy follows the form: “I don’t know what caused this; therefore God caused it.” Our logic follows this form: “God says He created the universe and everything in it. Therefore, He created the world and everything in it.”

Ungodly persuaders may try to refute the fact that God reveals reality to us. They may not like to consider that He leads, teaches, and corrects everyone who follows Him. However, they can’t rationally refute these facts. They must resort to axiomatic-thinking fallacies and smokescreen fallacies as we see in this example.

False-Accusation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Finding a Fault Where None Exists or False Error)

An untrue claim against some person or entity

False-Attribution Fallacy

Claiming that a quote or opinion came from a source other than the true source

Examples:

The Bible says Iraq will be the center of the economic world in the end.

The Bible doesn’t talk, but God speaks through the Bible. However, the claim given here isn’t in the text, so it’s either extra-biblical divine revelation or human speculation. Christians form denominations because people get into the habit of saying the Bible says what’s not written in the Bible. The Bible can say anything you want it to say if you allow yourself even a single assumption.

Science says evolution [molecules-to-man] is a fact.

Science doesn’t talk. The persuader is slyly defining science as the opinions of only those scientists who believe in evolutionism.

Persuaders commit false-attribution fallacies to

• lend false credibility
• imply false authority
• launch ad hominem attacks

False-Bigotry Fallacy

Accusing another person of bigotry because that person doesn’t conform to one’s own worldview

Examples:

• It has become popular to accuse Christians of bigotry for believing what God reveals and disbelieving what human beings make up.
• Ungodly people use the name-calling fallacy to label as bigots those who believe what God says about homosexuality or other sexual perversions.

False-Bravado Fallacy

(a.k.a. Bluffing, Appeal to False Bravado, False Show of Confidence, Turning Up the Rhetoric, or Bluster)

A theatrical false show of confidence

Examples:

Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy. And they found several specimens. It wasn’t one individual. In other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found and it was found. So far, Ken Ham, and his worldview, the Ken Ham Creation model, does not have this capability. It cannot make predictions and show results. ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye is shoehorning the evidence to fit the prediction, but he does it with false bravado. In this case, he predicts that scientists will find intermediate forms between kinds of living organisms (cat kind, dog kind, etc.). Evolutionists have constantly been searching since Darwin, and they make a broad prediction, but Bill described the prediction as narrow. Evolutionists predicted they would find transitional forms in abundance between all living organisms. Bill says they predicted finding this particular animal. There should be millions of these intermediate forms in the fossil record, not just tons of fossils showing interesting variations within existing kinds that we actually do observe. Calling Tiktaalik a missing link is a bare assertion. It’s like so many other so-called predictions that didn’t pan out but scientists publicized them as victories anyway.

Scientists already debunked Tiktaalik as a transitional form. So Bill resorts to false bravado, just pumping it up and stepping up the rhetoric. Bill also claims the Creation model cannot predict and show results. Ken Ham showed him a slide of 20 predictions in his opening talk, but Bill is in denial. Bill made a great show of superiority, giving a series of bogus claims of evolutionistic “predictions.” That’s false bravado instead of proof. People are much more likely to believe baloney when a persuader puts on an air of self-confidence. However, false bravado isn’t proof of anything. The so-called predictions for evolution are mere confirmation bias.

Well, um, the God of the Koran I don’t know so much about. [We notice how sheepish Richard is when faced with a culture more likely to respond with violence against him.] The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. ~ Richard Dawkins, when asked why he doesn’t attack Allah

Richard exhibits great false bravado and irrational self-confidence when he assumes. Without proof, he makes insane comments against the God Who created everything and Who sent His Son to die for Richard and everyone else. Persuaders use false bravado as proof for a conclusion instead of real evidence and rational thought.

False-Choice Fallacy

Presenting an unreasonable choice

Example:

How else would you explain it? ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye gave a long talk about one of the huge problems with the molecules-to-humanity story. He then ended by saying the observation that makes the molecules-to-humanity story seem impossible confirms the story. He even implied it’s an example of a prediction that Darwin’s story would make. He ended with this magician’s rhetorical question “How else would you explain it?” that implies only one choice. This made no sense, but that was his claim.

How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years? There isn’t enough time since Mr. Ham’s Flood for this limestone that we’re standing on to have come into existence. ~ Bill Nye

Bill was claiming the Genesis Flood couldn’t have possibly happened, and that was his supposed proof. However, he mentioned two choices. He mentioned billions of years. He mentioned the time since the Flood. He left out the choice of the layers forming during the Flood.

Examples:

• false dilemma
• false trilemma
• magician’s choice
• false dichotomy
• single choice
• Hobson’s choice

False-Conversion Fallacy

(a.k.a Illicit Conversion)

Switching the terms of a premise in the conclusion when the premise uses the word “all,” “some,” or “no”

Invalid Forms:

All X are Y. Therefore, all Y are X.

No X are Y. Therefore, no Y are X.

Example:

All Christians are flawed people. Therefore, all flawed people are Christians.

False-Criteria Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Questionable Criteria)

Applying irrelevant standards to test the truth or the falsity of a proposition

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Prove God to me.

Rocky Rockbuilder: God has made Himself obvious in the things He created. He says He revealed Himself through His creation, so anyone who refuses to acknowledge Him is without excuse. Every person who seeks Jesus Christ finds Jesus Christ. Anyone can test it. If you really want to know the truth, if you’re really searching for goodness and righteousness, then you can come to Him in sincerity, respect, and humility and He’ll reveal Himself to you.

Sandy: I’ll only believe if I see Him in physical form.

Sandy Sandbuilder will only accept the spiritual God if He isn’t spiritual, which is a classic false-criteria fallacy.

False-Dichotomy Fallacy

(a.k.a. False Either-Or, Either-Or Fallacy, Black-and-White Fallacy, Black-and-White Thinking, Bifurcation, or False Correlative)

Stating that only two mutually exclusive choices exist when at least one other possibility exists

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: The results from the annual Gallup survey on creationism are out, with the numbers right about where they’ve been for the past 30 years. Finding yet again 46 percent of Americans do not “believe” in evolution remains, to me, dismaying. To believe in creationism, either you must believe there is a global conspiracy of scientists intent on lying to you, or you must believe God is intent on lying to you.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Are you sure those are the only two choices? What if most scientists aren’t intent on lying? What if preconceptions limit them? What if grant money depends on preconceptions? What if they can only get grant money if they embrace evolutionism? What if their preconceptions cause strong bias when interpreting their observations? What if most of them accept the current group-held preconceptions? Do you think it’s right that evolutionists persecute those who question evolutionism? Maybe many scientists won’t speak up when they discover the many inconsistencies with evolutionism. Maybe they’re afraid of the persecution.

Sandy Sandbuilder committed bifurcation and admitted his motivation. Sandy wants to convince everyone in the world that molecules-to-humanity evolution happened. However, despite the brainwashing system evolutionists created to do just that, many people still listen to what God says through Scripture, and Sandy hates that.

Views on racial discrimination and race differ wildly among black and white Americans, a new report from the Pew Research Center has found. ~ BBC News

No black people exist. No white people exist. We’re all various shades of brown. The racial idea is a trick to gain political control or to justify abuse.

The Creation Model is based on the Old Testament. So when you bring in, I’m not a Theologian, when you bring in the New Testament, isn’t that a little out of the box? ~ Bill Nye

Bill is trying to force a decision between the New and the Old Testaments, but there’s no such choice. It’s a false dichotomy. The New Testament continues the Old Testament. The Old Testament provides a necessary foundation for the New Testament. There’s no dichotomy here.

You either accept evolution as fact, or you’re unscientific. We can’t be scientific and question or reject evolution. No real scientist believes God created the universe.

This persuader commits a black-and-white fallacy. Here’s what the persuader is saying.

Scientists must reject what God reveals about Creation to be “a real scientist.”

Scientists can accept what God revealed about Creation and not be “a real scientist.”

It’s a false dichotomy since real scientists can also believe what God is saying.

You must either hold your religion [the way the ungodly usually refer to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ] loosely or give up being popular.

How about walking so closely with Jesus Christ that His joy, peace, and love flows out through you to others, so you attract those who love what’s right and good? Those who love sin may not love you, but they’re incapable of true love anyway since they can only find true love in Christ and His righteousness. They’ve rejected Christ and His righteousness.

Sandy: You must choose between reality and divine revelation.

Sandy implies there’s a dilemma between reality and divine revelation. However, divine revelation is reality. This choice supposes two things, but both things are the same thing. No one can know the truth about reality without divine revelation.

Some people say ethical issues are shades of gray. However, ethics are absolute. If they aren’t absolute, they aren’t ethics. In the same way, God’s laws are absolute, and God’s leading is absolute. Whenever we disobey God, we sin against God, and each sin is an absolute sin. Some sins have more serious results than others, but that doesn’t make them more sinful. Nor are sins with less serious results less sinful. For those who accept Christ and follow and learn from Christ moment by moment, Christ has an exact leading in every moment. Therefore, at any moment on any single issue, we either obey God or disobey God. When we disobey, we sin.

Related:

exhaustive-hypotheses fallacy

False-Dilemma Fallacy

Presenting two choices as if they had these three traits when all three conditions aren’t met: (1) if one is true, the other must be false, and if one is false, the other must be true, (2) the two choices are the only choices, (3) both choices are undesirable

A true dilemma must meet all three of these conditions, and a false dilemma falls short of meeting at least one of these conditions. A dilemma is a decision between two equally undesirable mutually exclusive choices.

Example:

Disbeliever: So either there is a god, and he cheats with miracles, or the world obeys strict rules of action and consequence.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati: This is the false dilemma. However, an alternative, as explained, is a God of order who used miracles for Creation and in rare occasions at other times when working out His program but normally works by what we call ‘natural law.’ The logical feasibility has been amply proved in practice by the good science discovered by believers in miracles.

The disbeliever uses loaded language in the word “cheats” to create his false dichotomy. God reveals His great faithfulness in giving us the laws of logic, laws of nature, and laws of mathematics so we can survive, and He also intervenes with miracles as He wills for our good. He’s the One Who designed all these laws. He enforces these laws throughout the universe. He has authority to do something different (That’s what a miracle is.) in His love without cheating in any way.

Related:

exhaustive-hypotheses fallacy

https://creation.com/miracles-and-science

False-Faith Fallacy

(a.k.a. Rationalized Faith or Make-Believe Faith)

Basing thinking on make-believe faith instead of God’s faith

Example:

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

While Frank Turek and Norman Geisler used this statement to lend a little humor to the subject, it also points out a real problem. Atheists blur the distinction between real faith and make-believe faith.

I’m certain evolution [molecules to humanity] is a fact.

Real faith is certainty, but it’s certainty based on hearing God’s voice. The faux certainty of evolutionism depends on gut feelings, imagination, and false bravado, so it’s a false faith.

A persuader may base a premise or conclusion on make-believe. Usually, persuaders use words like “axiom,” “assumption,” or “concept.” However, if they were honest, they’d use more accurate terms for unproven premises or conclusions. They’d refer to them using terms like these: “creative story,” “made-up stuff,” “pretend ideas,” or “fabrications.”

Making believe is a substitute for God’s faith, and God’s faith is the gift received by acknowledging God’s leading since God’s faith comes by hearing God’s utterance. When God speaks and we acknowledge Him, God’s faith comes. ^{(Proverbs 3:5-6)} Children can connect with God in this way, but adults often harden themselves against God.

False-Flag Fallacy

Pretending to be one’s opponent and using the deception against the opponent

Examples:

• Parody on evangelical fallacies
• Antifa disguising themselves as conservatives and committing crimes to cast a bad light on conservatives
• Antifa disguising themselves as Christians and committing crimes to cast a bad light on Christians
• Marxists infiltrating Christian churches and taking leadership to trick Christians into believing Marxism, humanism, or evolutionism

False-Freedom Fallacy

Thinking one is free when one is in slavery

Thinking a decision results in more freedom when the decision results in more bondage

Example:

I’m free to do anything I want to do.

This persuader commits a false-freedom fallacy by thinking she can gain freedom by following her own will. However, following her own will makes her more of a slave to Satan. In contrast, she could only find freedom in willing submission to Jesus Christ.

False-Open-Mindedness Fallacy

(a.k.a. hidden bias)

Claiming to be unbiased when there’s bias

Claiming open-mindedness without opening the mind

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: My mind is open. Prove God to me. I’ll listen.

Rocky Rockbuilder: If your mind is open, then you can know God exists by simply enquiring of Christ. Sincerely ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Read the Bible daily for a year and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to you through Scripture. Tell Him you’re sorry that you resisted Him, and then yield your will to Him.

Sandy: I’m not going to yield my will to God.

Sandy Sandbuilder falsely claims he wants to learn. He implies he’s open if anyone can show him a reason to believe. He says he’ll listen, pretending he doesn’t have a presupposed stance. And yet, he refuses to look at the evidence he can have by seeking Christ and finding Him.

Among the mind games of the debate mindset, false open-mindedness is one way to play to the crowd, and it’s also a way to claim the moral high ground. Pretending to be open-minded is a form of counter-factual fallacy. Of course, faking open-mindedness is seldom the most important point a persuader is making. The persuader usually commits this fallacy to hide the untruth of a cherished lie.

False-Premise Fallacy

Using a premise when the premise is an assertion contrary to fact

A premise is a statement used to prove a conclusion true. The premise must be proved. It must be true.

Example:

Scientific observation proves evolution happened in gradual steps over millions of years. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution is anti-science.

We can’t prove anything is true by telling a lie, and the statement “scientific observation proves evolution happened” is a lie. If scientific observation proves evolution happened, let us observe it happening in the way the theory says it happened, and don’t make us just listen to stories and assumptions. If we can repeatedly observe the changes over millions of years, it’s science. If we can’t repeatedly observe the changes over millions of years, it’s not science.

False-Prophet of the Apocalypse Fallacy

Controlling every means of mass communication and using sophisticated hypnotic and psy-ops techniques to deceive masses of people.

We knew it was coming. We thought, perhaps, it would be one man standing on a street corner shouting. And that might happen. However, a powerful false-prophet system is programming your mind. This system consists of every form of media and education. The system demonizes and persecutes into oblivion the few who bring out truth that disagrees with any of its lying messages. We don’t know for certain a single person isn’t directing this system, but it appears to be controlled by one or more people hiding behind a few giant holding companies and non-prophet corporations.

False-Prophecy Fallacy

A false claim, especially of some future event

Examples:

We can’t answer all the problems with the Theory of Evolution. However, science will eventually solve all the problems with the Theory of Evolution.

That’s wishful thinking. The favored “theory” just keeps having ever-more serious conflicts with the real world, but evolutionists make up new stories to hide the problem.

I’ve analyzed the Scripture, and while I can’t tell you the exact day and hour of Christ’s return, I now know the month.

Persuaders who commit false-prophecy fallacies may claim divine inspiration. But they claim common sense, evidence, the Bible, or science much more often. The evidence is phantom. Their use the Bible is just the word “Bible.” It’s phantom Scripture. The science is phantom. In all false prophecies, persuaders don’t know the prophecies are true. They just claim them. In other words, they use false prophecy as a smokescreen to hide the weakness of another claim, their primary claim.

Some people think the existence of false prophecy means true prophecy doesn’t exist. However, false prophets and true prophets have always existed just as false teachers and true teachers have always existed.

False-Tolerance Fallacy

Creating the illusion of tolerance when there’s no tolerance

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m tolerant; are you? If you tolerate something, you must endorse it. Please sign this pledge that you’ll support and encourage every form of sexual behavior.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Since you’re tolerant, by your definition of the word, you must endorse my belief also. I base my belief on what God, through the Bible, says about sex and marriage between one man and one woman for life.

Sandy: That belief isn’t tolerable, so I won’t tolerate it.

The false-tolerance fallacy is a definist fallacy. Persuaders define “tolerance” as something other than mere toleration. In this form, persuaders define intolerance to include all sorts of rules other than allowing the existence of another person or group of people. These persuaders say “tolerance” means you have to endorse or encourage some flavor of evil. They want to force godly people to sin. They won’t tolerate righteousness, but they claim to be enforcing tolerance.

Two thousand years ago, idol worshipers used the government to present Christians with the choice. They could put a pinch of incense on the idol’s altar, or they could choose execution. Now, those who want to pervert marriage use the government to present Christians with the choice of baking a cake for a mock wedding or facing bankruptcy. They want Christian artists to make art that glorifies abominations under the threat of prison.

False-Trilemma Fallacy

Presenting only three possibilities when there’s at least one more possibility

A trilemma is a choice between three unpleasant options. It’s like a dilemma but with three choices instead of two. The Münchausen trilemma is a false trilemma. It arbitrarily omits two possibilities: revelation and demonic influence. The root fallacy is axiomatic thinking, which is making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true. Many other fallacies, including circular reasoning and infinite regression, work as smokescreens to hide the axiomatic thinking.

False-Witness Fallacy

Making untrue or unproven statements about another person

False witness can take the form of gossip, libel, or character assassination. Demagogues often demonize rivals to enhance their popularity and power.

Falsification Fallacy

Falsely denying dogmatic belief in a speculative explanation and falsely claiming some specific evidence would prove it false

Claiming open-mindedness when the mind is closed and no evidence could change the mind

Example:

Questioner: What, if anything, would ever change your mind [about the big-bang, billions of years, and molecules-to-humanity evolution]?

Bill Nye: We would just need one piece of evidence.

Done. Open your mind to the new idea.

Bill Nye: We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another.

Done. Open your mind to the new idea.

Bill Nye: We would need evidence that the universe isn’t expanding.

That’s an argument from ignorance and a red herring. Bill is assuming the cause. An expanding universe would not prove the big bang story. If the universe is expanding (possible), Bill offers the single choice of an imagined big bang. However, God says He spread out the heavens, so this criterion isn’t valid since both explanations meet it.

Bill Nye: We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not.

That’s an argument from ignorance and a red herring. Bill uses a straw man to hide a bizarre hypothesis. He thinks God couldn’t get distant starlight to earth by any means, which includes both natural and supernatural means, yet Bill gives no proof for his claim.

The Big Bang Cosmology begins and ends with an unsolved distant starlight problem, yet all the biblical cosmologies solve the distant starlight problem. Ungodly thinkers make up just-so stories to explain away the big bang’s problems. They tell these just-so stories in an attempt to prop up the big bang story. However, none of these just-so stories coherently solves the big bang’s distant starlight problem. Therefore, Bill is privileging the big bang hypothesis.

Bill Nye: We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount.

Done. Open your mind and accept reality.

Bill Nye: We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons.

The problem isn’t one of resetting atomic clocks or keeping neutrons from becoming protons, so this argument is a red herring. Each dating method uses observations but also uses assumptions, so if you change the assumptions, you change the age using identical observations. That means Bill based his claims of millions or billions of years on circular reasoning. And the circular reasoning is a smokescreen pretending to base the entire fraud on more than made-up stuff. Stories of millions or billions of years are based on made-up stuff.

Falsification is the act of disproving. A scientist claims some condition or discovery will prove a proposition, hypothesis, or theory is false. The scientist creates a set of criteria for falsification of the idea. If someone meets the criteria, the idea is false.

However, persuaders can fake falsification. For instance, the persuader changes the criteria whenever it’s met. When comparing two theories, as in the case we just mentioned, a persuader may propose invalid criteria that would falsify both theories. Persuaders may set criteria that distract from the actual problem. For example, Bill made it seem as if someone was claiming atomic clocks reset to keep neutrons from becoming protons when the actual problem is in the assumptions. Another way persuaders fake falsification is by making up just-so stories to get around the criteria. It’s always possible to make up a just-so story. When the theory proves false, the persuader may simply deny it was proved false.

With stories about the distant past, scientists have a history of changing the criteria for falsification, and they make up just-so stories to rescue the current sacred-cow stories. They label the sacred cows and just-so stories “science.” Here’s part of the problem. We can’t falsify stories about the unobservable past if we allow just-so stories. However, these particular stories are extremely important to the ungodly thinkers since they fit their bias. And scientists justify the just-so stories by accusing those who mention them of committing a fallacy of assigning the derogatory term “just-so story” to hypotheses. They say, hypotheses require further evaluation and are part of how science works by definition. However, their flimsy excuse doesn’t change the facts.

Scientists don’t make all science invalid when they commit this fallacy. This fallacy rarely comes up when scientists use science to find new ways to build technology. Persuaders use this fallacy when they speculate into the past or the spiritual realm under the guise of science. We can falsify true scientific theories. We can’t falsify fake scientific theories since those theories are ungodly religious beliefs that scientists keep morphing to keep them alive.

Fallacy Abuse:

Some persuaders have tried to undermine divine revelation by using the phantom-falsification fallacy. They falsely claimed divine revelation couldn’t be falsified.

However, in real life, God exposes fakes who claim to have received divine revelation. God has historically exposed many false prophets and false teachers.

Some of these false prophets and false teachers make up just-so stories to avoid falsification, which is the falsification fallacy. However, God holds us responsible if we continue to follow a false teacher or false prophet after God has exposed the false teacher or false prophet.

For each of us who follow Christ, the Holy Spirit is constantly exposing our own false beliefs, many of which we mistakenly thought we had received from God. Some of these mistaken beliefs are minor, but some are major. When God changes our thinking, it shakes us to the core, so we may resist falsification.

Falsified-Inductive-Generalization Fallacy

Narrowly defining a class to omit certain members of the class to make a point about the class

Examples:

All scientists agree the earth is billions of years old.

If we would artificially eliminate every scientist who disagrees, this statement would be true.

Falsified inductive generalization is a form of circular reasoning. A persuader restricts a wide abstraction. In our example, the wide abstraction is the term “scientists.” The persuader restricts “scientists” to a narrow set of particular attributes. The persuader restricts the term “scientists” to only those scientists who believe in the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. This persuader then decides the abstraction “scientists” only includes those scientists who believe in the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. By this faulty reasoning, the persuader destroys the entire principled structure underlying the wide abstraction. In this case, the persuader destroys the fact that scientists are people who do science. They observe, record, infer based on observations, etc. regardless of their belief or disbelief of billions of years. The persuader recognizes a subset of all scientists. He recognizes only those who agree to the idea of billions of years. The persuader then says all scientists agree the earth is billions of years old. However, the persuader is saying the subset of all scientists is the same as all scientists.

Rocky Rockbuilder: There’s only one race, the human race, and we have a common set of parents. We know that by divine revelation, and genetic studies confirm it. Therefore, it’s wrong to classify people according to race.

Sandy Sandbuilder: No. Some people are not part of the human race. They’re only partially human. At least they’re not persons since they haven’t fully evolved.

Sandy Sandbuilder is committing the logical fallacy of falsified inductive generalization. He’s doing that based on presuppositions that include naturalism, materialism, and evolutionism.

Rocky Rockbuilder: An abortion is the murder of a person.

Sandy Sandbuilder: No. Fetuses are not persons. They’re fully human, but they have not yet become persons. Dr. Mark Mercer, the chairperson of the philosophy department at Halifax’s St. Mary’s University, informs us children aren’t persons until they’re at least eighteen months old.

That’s another example of the logical fallacy of falsified inductive generalization. Sandy Sandbuilder defines the “person” class based on assumptions, but Rocky defines the “person” class based on divine revelation.

Related:

no-true-Scotsman fallacy and frozen-abstraction fallacy

Fantasy-Projection Fallacy

(a.k.a. Worldview Projection, Fake-Reality Projection, Paradigm Projection, or Context Projection)

Assuming one’s own worldview is real reality but any conflicting worldview is fantasy

Filtering observation or experience through one’s own worldview

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: You ask how I know the Bible is accurate and without error. I know because God reveals it to me. I know by divine revelation.

Sandy Sandbuilder: This revelation is just something you make up. If I had voices in my head, I would go to a shrink. All claims of revelation are merely assumptions.

Rocky: You claimed any revelation is a mere assumption. What scientific method can you give me to observe that God doesn’t reveal Himself and His knowledge to those who seek Him in sincerity?

Sandy: As I said, you need to go to a shrink.

Sandy Sandbuilder seems sure of himself, yet notice how he dodges the question. Since Sandy doesn’t have a method to know what he’s claiming, he’s guilty of fantasy projection and has lost touch with reality.

Fast-Talking Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Fast Talking)

Speaking too quickly, especially when speaking about complex topics

Creating information overload

The human mind can become overloaded with too many new thoughts or by trying to keep up with many rapidly-introduced ideas. In these cases, the human mind starts making mistakes and becoming confused. Sometimes persuasion uses confusion for brainwashing. Education systems often use this method. News media, entertainers, and preachers sometimes do the same.

Faulty-Analogy Fallacy

(a.k.a. Weak Analogy, Bad Analogy, Appeal to the Moon, Ad Lunam, or Spurious Similarity)

Claiming two unlike things are like each other while ignoring differences

Claiming two things are like each other in a way they aren’t like each other

Making an analogy between two things in a way that would make the analogy unreasonable

Examples:

If we can put a man on the moon, then we can fix the problems with society given enough money and power.

Putting a man on the moon is not similar to fixing society since fixing society would involve changing human nature.

Dawkins’ Weasel computer program is like a microbiology experiment.

Dawkins wrote the program to supposedly simulate evolution, but it cheated in several ways. Evolutionists claim it proved random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection can cause molecules-to-humanity evolution. However, the program did things we don’t find in nature. The program had a target and protected any partial gains toward the target. Dawkins defended the deception by saying the program was simulating natural selection, but it didn’t simulate natural selection.

Natural selection selects against changes that don’t provide an advantage. The advantage must be great enough that it would out-compete what came before. Natural selection would destroy partial changes before any change would become competitive. A more accurate model wouldn’t protect small advances but would have a second function that would destroy any changes to simulate natural selection. The one exception would be when the entire sentence would be completed in an instant by chance.

That still wouldn’t do it. Only a new function could provide an advantage. The new function needs a complete information system. It needs coded information. It needs a mechanism to maintain the coded information. It needs a mechanism to execute the coded information. These three elements would need to pop into existence in an instant.

The Weasel program didn’t simulate adding a new capability or anything else we find in nature. It oversimplified the processes needed to create new functions that create competitive advantages. It’s a model of personified and over-simplified natural selection. It personifies natural selection by transforming it into an intelligent agent with a goal in mind and a constant eye on meeting this goal. In nature, we see natural elimination when a mutation occurs causing a weakness great enough to disallow reproduction. We never see natural processes designing and creating new coded information systems.

To believe in evolution is the same as to believe in gravity.

This persuader compares the molecules-to-humanity story to the observed Law of Gravity. However, the persuader cleverly confuses the word “evolution.” They define “evolution” as both an untestable story and observed changes. No one disputes the observations. Many people dispute the story. However, by replacing the word used for confusion, we can restate it and easily see the faulty analogy as follows:

Evolution consists of stories about millions of years. Over this time a simple one-celled life form supposedly changed gradually into ever-more complex life forms. We believe these life forms changed until we have all the different forms of living organisms we see today. Believing this story is the same as believing gravity exists.

Now, it’s easy to see the faulty analogy.

The idea of analogy is we can explain a new truth by comparing it to a familiar truth. However, persuaders can misuse analogies to make untruth seem true. Also, even though thinkers can make valid analogies, analogies prove nothing. We can use them for illustration. However, if we try to use an analogy as proof, we commit a fallacy.

Faulty-Comparison Fallacy

Errors in making a comparison

Example:

We know evolution and billions of years are facts of science. That’s the same science by which we can make cars, trains, and buses. You believe in cars, trains, and buses, don’t you? Then believe in evolution and billions of years.

Persuaders make up stories no one can verify or observe about the distant past. Scientists can perform science anyone can verify and observe in the present. These are different activities. When persuaders compare these different activities without pointing out the differences between them, they commit the fallacy of faulty comparison. Persuaders are even more deceptive when they imply the stories they tell about the observations are as valid as the observations. Stories aren’t observations. This faulty comparison results in students thinking stories are the same as observations.

Faulty comparison creates a false impression about one or both of the entities compared.

Examples of Faulty Comparison Fallacy:

• incomplete comparison
• inconsistent comparison
• package-deal fallacy
• equating opposites
• extended analogy
• red-herring comparison

Faulty-Sign Fallacy

(a.k.a. Faulty Predictor)

Assuming an observable event or circumstance is a predictor of another event or circumstance when we can’t prove it’s a predictor

Examples:

• Polls are often faulty predictors.
• The science behind the global warming predictions turned out to be a faulty predictor since temperatures haven’t risen as the so-called science had foretold.
• The big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story has proved to be a faulty predictor.

Fear-Mongering Fallacy

(a.k.a. Scare Tactics)

Using fear to persuade

Examples:

New York will be under water by 2016, so we need an ungodly worldwide totalitarian dictatorship to avoid the disaster.

Well, it didn’t happen this way, but the persuaders who fear-monger predict new disasters even more terrible with even more certainty, and they propose the same solution.

If a Christian is elected to office, this Christian will force us to accept Christian beliefs.

Biblical Christianity has no incentive to enforce acceptance of beliefs; however, the ungodly religions have a history of forcing their beliefs on the godly, especially the children of the godly. When Christians wander away from God and the teachings of Scripture, Christians fall for the same tactics as any other ungodly group. That’s exactly what happened to the Church in the dark ages.

Feigned-Powerlessness Fallacy

(a.k.a. I Wish I Had a Magic Wand)

Claiming nothing can be done when something can be done

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I would like to help you, but I just can’t this week.

Sandy Sandbuilder could help, but he doesn’t like the person who asked for help.

Fighting-Fire-with-Fire Fallacy

Using the same irrational, dishonest, or irritating methods that another person is using

If one tells a lie, the other counters with a different lie. If one goes beyond fact, the other goes beyond fact. If one calls names, the other responds by calling names. If one says the other is going to hell, the other counters with the same.

Finish-the-Job Fallacy

Using the desire to complete a project as proof the project should be completed

Example:

• The Federal Government finally ended the requirement to report on Y2K date problems in 2017, but no one mentioned it was a waste of money from 2001-2017.
• RCA sunk $580 million into SelectAVision over a period of 14 years even though the technology was already obsolete before work on the project started.

Thinkers committing the finish-the-job fallacy work on a project when it makes no sense to do so. They keep working because of duty to finish rather than for the purpose of the project. Sometimes situations change so we don’t need the project. The project champion can’t justify the project. And yet, the champion keeps pushing to complete the project.

Fishing-for-Data Fallacy

(a.k.a. Data Dredging, Data Fishing, Data Snooping, or Equation Fitting)

Using patterns in data as proof for a conclusion when the patterns don’t prove the conclusion

Examples:

• Dark matter is a wildcard number used to make the big-bang-billions-of-years story appear to make sense.
• Calculations of the age of the earth are all circular. Scientists make assumptions to make the data fit the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story. Those assumptions presuppose the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story, so they’re circular. Persuaders use many tricks to make the numbers add up to the desired conclusion.
• When researchers mine data to uncover relationships, they often see statistical patterns that look like relationships when those relationships don’t really exist. In other words, patterns are there when no real relationship exists. Researchers can see these patterns and draw conclusions that might not be true.

When we use statistics, we’re using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning adds human interpretation to data, so it’s subject to error. We can never rationally say we’ve proved anything by inductive reasoning. God designed all things in an orderly way and is controlling all things in an orderly way, enforcing what we call the laws of nature, including the laws of probability. We shouldn’t be surprised to see patterns in data that result from this natural, God-enforced order.

In many cases of fishing for data, the researchers don’t even observe the required patterns to draw a conclusion. However, the researchers prefer a certain conclusion, so they announce their conclusion as if the data supports the conclusion.

Flat-Earth-Navigation-Syndrome Fallacy

Using a false concept or worldview as the presupposition for future solutions

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: The problem is Christians still believe what science has proved false. When Columbus sailed, they were afraid that he would fall off the edge of a flat earth. Believing in biblical Creation is an example of the flat earth navigation syndrome.

Rocky Rockbuilder: We call that story “the flat earth myth.” My teacher taught me that story in school when I was growing up, and I believed the myth because my teacher said it was true. However, when Columbus sailed, they weren’t afraid he would fall off the edge of a flat earth. The consensus of scientists said the earth was a globe. They argued over how large the globe was. The Greeks largely believed in a flat earth at one time, but there’s no evidence that Christians did and quite a lot of evidence Christians did not.

Sandy, not Rocky, is the one committing the flat-earth-navigation-syndrome fallacy. Sandy is using an old story told by Andrew Dickson White in a book he wrote, “The Warfare of Science with Theology.” Mr. White did admit Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas all said the earth was a globe. However, he also found some writers on the fringe. In any group, we find some of those. So he put this myth into his book even though he knew it wasn’t true. Mr. White fooled many people. Some uninformed thinkers still believe White’s story. They think most people believed the earth was flat. However, no evidence exists to support this belief. Instead, this narrative of a so-called “flat earth” is Mr. White’s appeal-to-ridicule fallacy designed to insult those who won’t fall in line with the doctrines of the evolutionism-myth.

Anti-God thinkers today perpetuate the hoax. Unfortunately, ungodly thinkers, have promoted this as a parody of evangelicals and deceived some Christians. Those Christians, although a fringe group, have fully fallen for the hoax.

Sandy Sandbuilder: We can create life from non-life in the laboratory. We do it all the time. It’s called the Urey-Miller experiment.

Rocky Rockbuilder: The Urey-Miller experiment actually proves you can’t create life—at least not that way. If you continue to let misinformation form your opinions, you’ll be like someone trying to navigate the world with a presupposition the earth is flat.

Sandy Sandbuilder committed the flat-earth-navigation-syndrome fallacy. Rather than discerning Christ, he was trying to rationalize from a story he had heard, and the story was a hoax.

Humanity, however, is flawed, including Christians. As Christians, we have access to the Holy Spirit, but sometimes we don’t wait for His leading. We depend on our brute-beast minds, but they’re incapable of rational thought. When Christians don’t know Christ, persuaders can just as easily deceive Christians as they can deceive any other ungodly thinker. As a joke, some atheists started a movement among ungodly-thinking Christians and proved they can fool them. They started flat earth discussion groups, bringing supposed evidence for a flat earth. Interestingly, they use the same methods for “proving” a flat earth as evolutionists use for “proving” the stories of evolutionism.

Related:

cherishing-the-zombie fallacy

Flawed-Evidence Fallacy

Using evidence we can’t prove or test

Citing evidence based on made-up stuff: assumptions and stories

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: We observe that information is added to the genome. This information drives molecules-to-humanity evolution. Therefore, we know evolution is a fact.

Rocky Rockbuilder: If that were true, it wouldn’t prove the story of evolution. But what makes you think something created and added new information to the genome. I’m talking about information of the type the story of molecules-to-humanity evolution would need? And what added this supposed information?

Sandy: Viruses add new information all the time.

Rocky: For evolutionism, something has to add new information to the genome, but viruses don’t add new information in the way you claim. It’s a bit more complicated than I care to explain, so I’m going to refer you to an article you can read: https://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of-genetic-information.

Sandy brought evidence, but the evidence was flawed. If evidence depends on one or more assumptions it’s flawed.

Flimflam Fallacy

A trick or deception

A swindle or confidence game involving skillful persuasion or clever manipulation

Flimflam may involve any number of fallacies. Sometimes, flimflam is a way to trick people and get their money.

Floating-Abstraction Fallacy

A conclusion drawn from a concept disconnected from reality

Examples:

• Basing a conclusion on reasoning that uses assumptions to “prove” the premises.
• Basing a conclusion on a premise that comes from emotion, fear, or some other fallacy.
• Basing a conclusion on evidence that’s an interpretation of observation.
• Basing a conclusion on a presupposition.
• Basing a conclusion on a theory.

Forestalling-Disagreement Fallacy

Using various tactics to make objecting seem contrarian or otherwise embarrassing to censor conflicting opinions

A persuader will often couple the forestalling-disagreement fallacy with the assumption-correction-assumption fallacy. Sometimes a persuader uses this fallacy to create a false consensus. Persuaders can use any number of intimidation techniques to keep anyone from objecting. The fallacy works for message control. We see persuaders using it in the university environment, the news media, the entertainment industry, the scientific community, and in various religious organizations.

Examples:

• Those who believe in liberalism and evolutionism belittle and punish professors and students who don’t believe in liberalism and evolutionism.
• News organizations fire members of the news media who don’t conform to liberalism.
• Entertainers who back a conservative candidate find themselves viciously attacked and out of work.
• Scientists who don’t believe the stories about global warming, big bang, billions of years, or molecules-to-humanity evolutionism are attacked and even fired.
• Christians who don’t believe certain parts of the Bible attack and belittle Christians who do believe those parts of the Bible.

Formal Fallacy

An error in the structure of reasoning

Formal Fallacy Examples:

• Probabilistic Fallacy
  • Base-Rate Fallacy
  • Conjunction Fallacy
  • Gambler’s Fallacy
  • Multiple-Comparisons Fallacy
• Appeal-to-Probability Fallacy
• Argument from Fallacy
• Masked-Man Fallacy
• Propositional Fallacy
• Commutation-of-Conditionals Fallacy
• Denying-the-Conjunct Fallacy
• Improper-Transposition Fallacy
• Affirming-a-Disjunct Fallacy
• Affirming-the-Consequent Fallacy
• Denying-the-Antecedent Fallacy
• Denying-the-Conjunct Fallacy
• Quantification Fallacy
  • Illicit-Conversion Fallacy
  • Quantifier-Shift Fallacy
  • Some-Are-Some-Are-Not Fallacy
  • Existential Fallacy
• Formal Syllogistic Fallacy
  • Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise
  • Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
  • Four-Term Fallacy
  • Illicit-Process Fallacy
  • Illicit-Major Fallacy
  • Illicit-Minor Fallacy
  • Undistributed-Middle Fallacy
• Modal Fallacy
• Bad-Reasons Fallacy
• Formally-Correct Fallacy
• According-To-The-Rules Fallacy
• Illicit Contraposition
• Illicit Observation

A fallacy of form is known as a formal fallacy, and the invalid form prevents logic from being sound. All formal fallacies are non-sequitur fallacies. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. However, correct form doesn’t mean the conclusion is true. And incorrect form doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is untrue either. It just means the conclusion isn’t proved by the reasoning provided.

Formally-Correct Fallacy

(a.k.a. According-to-the-Rules Fallacy)

Thinking logic is sound because it has valid form

The formally-correct fallacy comes from confusion about how we can know truth. A formally valid argument is a set of statements that follow a valid form, but a formally valid argument isn’t necessarily true. And while correct form is necessary for sound logic, correct form isn’t enough for sound logic since sound logic must also have true premises.

Examples of unsound logic with valid form:

If we have absolute proof for anything, we know it’s true. [true premise] We have evidence that the moon is made out of green cheese. [false premise] Therefore, we know the moon is made out of green cheese. [false conclusion]

Looking at the form of the fallacy, it’s perfect. However, one premise is false.

If we have absolute proof of anything, we know it’s true. [true premise] We have absolute proof for molecules turning into people over billions of years. [false premise] Therefore, we know molecules turned into people over billions of years. [false conclusion]

This rationalizer used valid form, one true premise, and one false premise. Since she used a false premise, her conclusion is unreliable. In this case, we know the conclusion is false since it conflicts with divine revelation.

If a good God existed, everything would be perfect. [false premise] Everything isn’t perfect. [true premise] Therefore, there is no God, or else God isn’t good. [false conclusion]

This persuader made the same mistake of valid form with a false premise.

Foundational Fallacy

Using the wrong foundation for reason

There’s only one true Foundation, Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the Bible, not vice versa. Jesus Christ is also the Foundation of morality, ethics, righteousness, holiness, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and the Church. Without this Foundation, fallacy is unavoidable.

Four-Terms Fallacy

(a.k.a. Quaternio Terminorum)

Introducing a fourth term into a formal syllogism by changing the meaning of one terms during reasoning

Annotated Example:

1. We observe a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool and recognize that as evolution.

This persuader explains the first definition of “evolution.”

2. History deniers deny evolution.

The persuader just changed the definition of “evolution” to a story about molecules turning into people over billions of years.

3. Therefore, those who deny evolution deny what we easily observe.

The persuader confuses her second definition with her first definition in one sentence. We now have four terms since this persuader changed her definition of the word “evolution” during reasoning. We could more easily see the fallacy if we put in the definitions rather than the word “evolution.”

Therefore, those who deny my story about molecules turning into people over billions of years deny the observations about a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool.

Related:

bait-and-switch fallacy

Framing Fallacy

(a.k.a. Not Understanding the Problem or Defining the Problem Incorrectly)

Stating a question or problem in an irrational way

Examples:

• A thinker defines a problem incorrectly.
• A persuader asks a question to divert attention away from the real problem.
• A persuader implies a predetermined solution, which is a form of circular reasoning.

Frozen-Abstraction Fallacy

Confusing a personal view of what something is (a subset of the class) with what it actually is (the wider class)

The wider class is scientist, but those who blind themselves see only a subset of the class scientist. So they only include those scientists who believe in evolutionism. As a result, they change the definition of “scientist,” which is the wider class. They change the definition of “scientist to include only their new narrow class. When they do that, they “freeze” their concept of scientist. We would say they have a frozen abstraction of scientists. They froze it at the level of one of the species of scientist. However, they didn’t integrate it into the higher, genus level. They didn’t include all the many species of scientists in their definition. So they see two scientists who work in the same lab doing the same work, and yet they can’t see that both of these people are scientists.

Related:

frozen-abstraction and no-true-Scotsman fallacies

Furtive Fallacy

Claiming the misconduct of decision-makers causes certain negative results without proving the claim

Examples:

The people who ran the church I attended were evil to the core, and they canceled the ladies’ knitting circle. I wish they had been more upright.

Perhaps other factors influenced the decision.

Leftists designed the new health care law to destroy the United States.

The U.S. Government did a bad job on the health care law, but we can’t determine motives other than by divine revelation. This law didn’t bring the promised results. Those who introduced it made many untrue statements. It did terrible damage to the United States and could have destroyed the United States. However, we would need some evidence of intent to prove the decision-makers designed it to destroy the United States.

Galileo-Wannabe Fallacy (appeal to pity)

(a.k.a. Galileo Argument)

Making a comparison to what Galileo went through while committing an appeal-to-pity fallacy

Examples:

Don’t you feel sorry for me? You’re treating me just as mainstream scientists treated Galileo. Therefore, the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story is a bunch of baloney.

This statement would be an appeal to pity if someone said that. More likely, it isn’t what the person really said. This statement would probably be a straw man of what the person said. The dogmatic big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity believers would interpret this person’s statement to be an appeal to pity. Most of the time, the discussions go something like this:

Sandy Sandbuilder: If the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story isn’t the only possible answer to the history of the universe, then why are there no articles defaming it in the [Secular] scientific journals.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Because, just as in Galileo’s day, the scientific ruling elite protect their sacred cow theories.

Sandy: Don’t cry on my shoulder. That’s just the Galileo-argument fallacy, an appeal to pity.

Rocky: You brought up the scientific journals as evidence, but I was pointing out that they’re corrupt. We can’t use them as evidence in the way you are trying to use them. In other words, your argument is circular. Pointing out your circular reasoning isn’t an appeal to pity.

In this case, Rocky didn’t commit the Galileo-Wannabe Fallacy, but Sandy abused the fallacy. A persuader mentions the Galileo-wannabe fallacy to discredit anyone who exposes the corruption of the journals. The persuader may also mention the fallacy to defend an appeal-to-tradition fallacy. One website titled their article: The Galileo Fallacy and Denigration of Scientific Consensus. Think about this title: Denigration of Scientific Consensus. First, consensus science isn’t science and makes progress unlikely if not impossible. Second, consensus means everyone agrees to some extent. No such consensus exists. And a bandwagon fallacy proves nothing even if such a consensus did exist.

The elite can create the illusion of consensus by firing anyone who openly disagrees. That’s a weak consensus. It’s like the consensus Mussolini achieved through fascism. It’s a form of fascism where despots maintain control by getting rid of anyone who voices opposition. So, it’s not surprising that ungodly thinkers would want to cover their tracks with a smokescreen on this one by creating a new fake-fallacy.

The scientists of Galileo’s day didn’t accept his breakthroughs. The fallacy is real. Some people resort to self-pity when they can’t prove their points. However, Rocky didn’t resort to self-pity. Rocky pointed out the lack of integrity at the top of the scientific hierarchy while noting Sandy’s faulty appeal-to-authority fallacy. He compared the present situation of the power brokers using the government to silence any other views to Galileo’s day when the power brokers used the government to silence any other views. Therefore, Rocky was thinking rationally and didn’t commit the fallacy.

The state of science in Galileo’s day was like the state of science today since a majority group of scientists resisted new ideas then just as they resist new ideas now. That’s human nature. That’s consensus science. And although they weren’t as anti-God as today’s scientists, yet they were just as closed-minded as today’s scientists. So they closed their minds to ideas that were outside the collective groupthink of that day just as today’s scientists (and all humans) do.

When we hear the Galileo-wannabe fallacy mentioned, the persuader mentioning it is almost always committing fallacy abuse in the form of a straw man. It’s become a standard form of summary dismissal of anyone who points out the groupthink problem.

Since the scientific establishment is having a problem with scientific integrity, rational thinkers use Galileo to point out a similar problem in Galileo’s day. Then, most scientists used the government to censor Galileo. Of course, the same problem happens today with schools, funding, scientific journals, and tenure. We see the same problem wherever the elite use their power to coerce or silence innovation or stop progress. Humans coerce those with whom they disagree even when no one finds a way to harness the power of government to force an agenda. However, governmental power makes coercion and censorship much more effective.

Related:

Galileo-wannabe fallacy (formal)

Galileo-Wannabe Fallacy (formal)

(a.k.a. Galileo Argument)

Making a comparison to what Galileo went through while committing a formal fallacy

Invalid form:

A is B, and A is D. C is B. Therefore, C is D.

Example:

They ignored, suppressed, and censored Galileo and he was right. I am ignored, suppressed, and censored. Therefore, I am right.

Seldom if ever will anyone commit this fallacy. Persuaders almost always use this fallacy as a straw man for fallacy abuse. They use it to discredit anyone who mentions the groupthink and coercion problems of the scientific establishment. They use this phantom fallacy to hide the confirmation bias and censorship within the scientific establishment. Since what happens today is like what happened in Galileo’s day when the majority of scientists used the government to censor Galileo, we see this same lack of integrity today. While technology changes, people are still people. Scientists have the same human frailties as the rest of us.

Related:

Galileo-wannabe fallacy (appeal to pity)

Gambler’s Fallacy

(a.k.a. Monte-Carlo Fallacy, Maturity of Chances, Doctrine of Chances, or Hot-Hand Fallacy)

Thinking the odds of a random event happening increase (or decrease) over time and repeated events

Example:

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles. ~ George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in Scientific American August, 1954

The atheist website, talkorigins.org, says anyone who cites this quote is quote mining. They say the same about citing any other quote not favorable to atheist dogma. Talkorigin’s staff writers don’t know what quote mining is. Quoting someone is not quote mining. Quote mining is quoting out of context to create a false impression. However, George Wald used this exact argument quoted here to give a classic example of the gambler’s fallacy.

George Wald’s quote doesn’t disprove any of the stories of evolutionism. However, we often hear similar logic. And this logic is committing the gambler’s fallacy. Evolutionists think long periods of time would increase the odds for the stories of evolutionism. Here’s the problem. Time doesn’t make the stories happen. The opposite is true. Time lets the Second Law of Thermodynamics work.

Gambling-Addiction Fallacy

Enslavement caused by searching for satisfaction in gambling

We can only find satisfaction progressively as we come into the image and likeness of Christ. ^{(Psalm 17:15)}

Gaps Fallacy

Attributing an effect or observation to a supposed cause without proving the cause is responsible for the effect or observation

Examples:

Evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy: The wide variety of living organisms is the result of millions of years of evolution.

Materialism-of-the-gaps fallacy: The mind is simply material. Period.

Types of Gaps Fallacies:

• God-of-the-gaps fallacy
• naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy
• materialism-of-the-gaps fallacy
• evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy

These are four types of gap fallacies. Many types of gap fallacies exist. All these fallacies claim a default position, but they don’t rationally explain why the position is the default. We call it “of the gaps” because wherever a persuader doesn’t have a true premise and valid form, the persuader inserts the default concept as the cause, reason, or solution. It’s a golden-hammer fallacy in which a persuader uses the default concept as a golden hammer to solve every problem.

Invalid Form:

“I don’t know what caused this; therefore [the default concept] caused it.”

God caused the creation to exist. He created everything. He maintains and upholds the entire creation. He even allows evil to work out even though He does no evil. He uses evil for His good purpose among those who love and serve Him, and His good purpose is to transfigure us into the image of His Son. That would be a gap fallacy if we didn’t know it by revelation. However, we know it by divine revelation, so it’s not a gap fallacy.

However, Christians commit the God-of-the-gaps fallacy if they try to use the lack of a naturalistic explanation as proof of God. The creative ability to make up a story, and explanation, isn’t proof that the naturalistic story/explanation is true. The naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy consists of saying, “I don’t know what caused this; therefore, it makes sense to make up a naturalistic explanation.” Someone can always make up a naturalistic explanation. Making up an explanation doesn’t prove the explanation true. The absence of a naturalistic explanation doesn’t prove God did it.

The proof of God is God Himself. We know God exists because we know Him and because He reveals Himself and reality. We know by revelation. Since this knowledge is by revelation, it’s absolute. What God says is a fact. We commit no fallacy by believing Him.

Since we’ve mentioned “naturalistic answers,” we must understand naturalistic explanations will always consist of made-up stuff. If we base our explanations on made-up stuff, we commit an axiomatic-thinking fallacy. Ungodly thinkers must always resort to axiomatic-thinking fallacies. They try to make their axioms seem real by using smokescreen fallacies. Ungodly thinkers must resort to axiomatic-thinking fallacies and smokescreen fallacies. That’s what we call the ungodly thinking problem.

God proves His existence by revealing Himself to us. The ungodly thinking problem doesn’t prove God’s existence, but it ought to make ungodly thinkers realize they’re basing all their opinions on vapor.

Garden-Path-Ambiguity Fallacy

A line of reasoning that follows a familiar path so those following the reason think they understand where the reasoning will lead, but the conclusion surprises them

Examples:

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. ~ Terry Wogan

I wish you were on the radio. I could shut you off. ~ Carpenter to his apprentice who was singing

You can trust the Communists to be Communists. ~ Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so. ~ Ronald Reagan

In garden path ambiguity, we temporarily misunderstand what someone is saying, but then we understand. Some people use garden path ambiguity as a humorous way to communicate an idea. We think they’re going down a familiar or obvious line of reasoning, but they give us a surprise ending.

Gaslighting Fallacy

Trying to convince someone they’re crazy and they aren’t observing what they’re observing or experiencing what they’re experiencing

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: I know Jesus Christ exists since I know Him. He leads, teaches, and corrects me moment by moment. Most of my friends are having the same experience. That’s every Christ-follower I know.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I suggest you see a psychiatrist to deal with the voices in your heads.

Sandy Sandbuilder is trying to gaslight Rocky and all who follow Christ. Look for gaslighting in news media, education, and entertainment, which are the main ways ungodly thinkers manipulate us. Watch for gaslighting as a method of peer pressure.

General-Rule Fallacy

Assuming something is a certain way because things are usually that way

Examples:

You can trust this salesman. He has a cross on his lapel.

Some salespeople can spot a Christian and adapt their dress and speech to close the sale. Don’t assume someone will be honest just because they’re a Christian or appear to be a Christian.

I’m safe going out with Jim. He’s the preacher’s son.

This girl has no guarantee that Jim is walking with Jesus. Perhaps it might be a good idea to find out what Jim is all about before getting into a car with him alone.

There’s no reason to look for traffic when crossing highway 5. No one’s coming most of the time anyway.

The general-rule fallacy is a form of hasty generalization.

Generalizing-from-a-Hypostatization Fallacy

Thinking a concept is part of reality and then using it to prove a conclusion

Thinking a speculative explanation is part of reality and then using it to prove a conclusion

Example:

Theology is a study with no answers because it has no subject matter. ~ Robert Heinlein

Based on generalizing from a hypostatization, Mr. Heinlein suggested that God doesn’t exist or speak to His people. That means Mr. Heinlein treated his assumptions as if they were facts. He also implied an assertion contrary to fact. He claimed this untruth with confidence because of the hypostatization of agnosticism. Agnosticism says no one can know God.

When people think concepts are facts, those people allow concepts to limit their thinking. They disallow exploration of the real facts. Every person who seeks Christ with sincerity, humility, and persistence, and with a will to do His will does find Him, yet they refuse to acknowledge His presence. They refuse to acknowledge Him when He reveals Himself to them.

If we hypostatize. We treat concepts as reality. We treat an idea as if it had substance. When we dream something up and consider it real, we’re hypnotized by a hypostatization. So we can’t rationally generalize from a hypostatization. It’s always a fallacy to hypostatize. We can’t rationally base any claim on hypostatization.

Genetic Fallacy

(a.k.a. Origins Fallacy or Fallacy of Virtue)

Using disenchantment with the origin of a claim as evidence to discredit the claim

Using enchantment with the origin of a claim as evidence for the claim

Examples:

You probably get your information from Creation.com, so I’m going to ignore everything you say.

Persuaders who commit the genetic fallacy ignore evidence just because the evidence came from a certain source. If they were rational, they would consider all the evidence or observations. They would find out how scientists discovered the evidence and whether the scientists followed the scientific method.

I wouldn’t read an article from a Creation website since the article would be filled with errors.

Closed-minded persuaders want to ignore any source that doesn’t agree with them. Based on the source, they dismiss any information from that source. They close their minds.

Some persuaders appeal to the authority of godless websites that defend ideas they believe. When they reject information or explanations from any other source, they simply confirm their appeal-to-authority fallacy.

I’m going to disregard everything you say because you’re a Christian. There’s no way you could bring a valid argument.

Some persuaders reject an entire class of people simply because members of that class of people know Jesus Christ. Ironically, ungodly thinkers can’t reason from a true premise, but they need a true premise to reason soundly. However, an ungodly thinker can use pragmatic thinking. The ungodly thinker just can’t reason soundly to a true conclusion.

Pragmatic reasoning is sometimes helpful in solving natural problems in the present. Pragmatists must stick to what they can test and observe in the present. It can’t theorize. It can’t rationally make statements about spiritual issues, history, theology, right, or wrong. Anytime it tries to go beyond immediate sensory data it fails. Pragmatism is irrational if an ungodly thinker tries to use it to know truth. And yet, ungodly thinkers can use what they can observe and test to obtain skills and practical solutions to problems.

Every argument you bring against Christ or the Bible depends on made-up stuff. You don’t have another choice since you won’t acknowledge Christ. As a naturalist, you can’t escape the Münchausen trilemma. Even when you accept Christ’s revelations, you fail to acknowledge Him. As a result, you see no difference between His truth and what your mind makes up, so I’m not saying you don’t have any truth. I’m saying you confuse truth with made-up stuff. When it comes to questioning the Bible or Christ, I know you’re getting that from a source other than Christ. It’s made-up stuff.

This follower of Christ doesn’t commit the genetic fallacy. The Christ-follower could ask for proof, making it clear he won’t accept made-up stuff as proof. The ungodly thinker would be unable to produce any proof. The ungodly thinker would resort to smokescreen fallacies and axiomatic-thinking fallacies. This would prove the ungodly thinker can’t verify or validate the ungodly claims.

Genetic fallacies fail to assess claims on their merits. In other words, it’s a way to avoid looking at the proof and the logic.

Gibberish Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Gibberish, Bafflement, Snow Job, or Prestigious Jargon)

Using obscure language, examples, diagrams, symbols, or uncommon definitions for normal words without explanation

Using normal words in an uncommon way without explanation

The gibberish fallacy consists of using confusion as proof for a conclusion. For instance, incomprehensible communication commits the gibberish fallacy. Sometimes, gibberish is a way to avoid answering a question. At other times, persuaders use gibberish as intimidation with an implication that anyone who doesn’t understand is simply stupid.

Examples of Gibberish by Ambiguous Definition of Terms:

• Defining “science” as both a process and all the beliefs and biases of the establishment.
• Defining “assumption” as an unknown taken as fact and also as testable knowledge taken as fact.
• Defining “evidence” as including unproven conclusions about observations.
• Defining “evolution” as all the following:
  • changes over time
  • small variations within kinds of living organisms that result from information already in the genome
  • the molecules-to-humankind story that supposedly happened over millions of years
  • explanations, based on assumptions, of what we now observe
  • systematic increases or decreases in the frequency of a particular gene in a gene pool

These are just a few ways irrational thinkers use definist fallacies to commit the gibberish fallacy. However, other forms of gibberish exist beyond definist fallacies. Gibberish can consist of irrational arrangements of words, butterfly logic, syntactic ambiguity, scope ambiguity, speaking too quickly, or any method of making communication difficult to understand.

God-Complex Fallacy

(a.k.a. Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

Self-centeredness and unwarranted self-confidence coming from failure to distinguish between one’s worldview and reality itself

Belief that one is a god or like a god, resulting in exaggerated self-confidence and dogmatic beliefs without proof of those beliefs

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Do you really want to know God? God won’t force Himself on you. Of course, you should count the cost. If you open yourself to Jesus Christ, you enter a relationship in which He is God, and you are not. It’s a relationship of submission and obedience. Are you ready to commit yourself to His righteousness, to his leading, teaching, and correction continually?

Sandy Sandbuilder: My understanding of seeing something is totally different than yours I am afraid. I want to study this God academically if he exists. Unfortunately, that is not possible because he is a supernatural phenomenon that cannot be scientifically and academically studied.

Rocky: Oh. So you don’t want God to be God, but you want to be a god. That won’t work any better than trying to make gold by boiling sewage.

Sandy: Sure I can be a God. I play God every day. It is my profession to play God actually. It’s what I do for a living. I’m very good at it too.

Rocky: That’s usually the case with atheists, but you at least admit you want to be your own God. That’s why I have to go. In case you ever change your mind, every person who seeks Jesus Christ finds Jesus Christ. Without Christ, you’re lost to irrationality. If you call out to Him, He’ll show you the rest. You might pick up a Bible and begin reading it while asking Him to reveal Himself through it. He reveals Himself through Scripture and every means He mentions in Scripture. He’s giving you another chance, but there will be a day when it’s too late.

Sandy Sandbuilder has a God complex. It showed up earlier in this conversation [most of which isn’t recorded here] as he used himself as the authority. He made claims and used his degree and acceptance by his like-minded peers as proof. He didn’t believe his claims were claims. He thought they were just obvious facts. This is common among ungodly thinkers. They think their own thoughts are magically true without any proof. He finally admitted to thinking of himself as a god. Not all narcissists will admit they think of themselves as gods. And yet, some do admit it.

He’ll recognize neither the gods of his ancestors nor those desired by women—he won’t recognize any god, because he’ll exalt himself above everything. ~ Daniel 11:37 International Standard Version

God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

Crediting to God what naturalists credit to naturalism without explaining how to know God is enforcing all the laws of science, math, and logic

Example:

Ha! Ha! You believe in the big bang but can’t explain how nothing exploded and caused everything. Since you have no explanation, the only rational explanation is God created everything just as the Bible says He did.

Christians commit the God-of-the-gaps fallacy when they try to prove the existence of God by pointing out something that naturalists haven’t explained using naturalism. The faulty argument claims if no natural explanation exists, then God did it. It’s similar in form to the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy and the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. All three fallacies claim a default position without rationally explaining why the position is the default. For naturalism and evolutionism, there’s no such rational explanation. However, Christians who can’t give a rational explanation have no excuse since a rational explanation exists.

The God-of-the-gaps fallacy is irrational for several reasons. First, naturalists will eventually dream up a story to cover every gap. The Christian using the God-of-the-gaps fallacy is pretending it makes sense to dream up stories and claim the default position. If it makes sense for Christians to do it, it makes sense for naturalists to do it. Naturalists do make up stories and claim the default position. When a Christian commits the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, they open the door for the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. Making up stories can never prove anything.

Second, the argument isn’t logically sound. It’s an argument from ignorance. It says, “I don’t know why that is as it is. Therefore, God did it.” That’s also a non sequitur.

Third, we know God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our constant teacher, and He leads and corrects us moment by moment. As part of this leading and correcting, He shows us He created the universe and everything in it. He reveals the history in the Bible is true. He says He’s the ultimate cause of everything good and orderly. We don’t need the gaps fallacy since we have divine revelation.

Some Christians don’t know Jesus Christ and aren’t led and taught by the Holy Spirit. These Christians may follow a concept of Almighty God Who created everything and Who enforces laws of nature. Perhaps, they once had an encounter with Christ and were born again.
Then, they never developed the relationship so they could know Christ. However, those who listen to Christ know He controls everything since they know Him. They know the Creator and Enforcer of everything spiritual and material.

Even so, the God-of-the-gaps fallacy is usually just a phantom fallacy based on a straw-man argument brought by those who oppose Christ. Ungodly thinkers claim we commit a fallacy if we say God did anything. Of course, that distorts the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. It’s fallacy abuse. God reveals He created all things and enforces what we call “the laws of nature.”

It’s never necessary for a follower of Christ to commit this fallacy. To avoid it, we openly confess Jesus Christ and our relationship with Him. Only two choices are available for knowing anything: divine revelation and making up stuff. And while making up stuff isn’t rational, listening to God is rational. So we just admit we know Christ and He leads us as we acknowledge Him. ^{(Proverbs 3:5-6)} However, it’s possible some of us don’t have this experience or aren’t aware of the presence and leading of Christ. If we don’t know Christ, we can know Him. Once we know Him, the Holy Spirit will purify us and build Christ in us over time.

People may challenge us and claim there’s no evidence of God as they insist it’s our responsibility to prove God to them. However, when they do that, they commit an argument-from-ignorance fallacy and also the fallacy of demanding an unequal burden of proof.

God-Wildcard Fallacy

“Divine mystery” used as an excuse for errors in logic

One way to commit the God-wildcard fallacy is failing to acknowledge God. For instance, we might fail to acknowledge that God revealed or did something. Alternately, we may fail to acknowledge our relationship with God. If we don’t acknowledge our relationship with God, we have no basis for any thought since we’re thinking just as irrationally as ungodly thinkers. That’s because we can’t know anything without the Holy Spirit’s leading. Without the Holy Spirit, we can only have unfounded opinions. Without the Holy Spirit, we become like the brute beasts Jude mentioned, brute beasts that are devoid of sound reason and depend on their senses alone.

We can also commit the God-wildcard fallacy by making claims that God never revealed reality to us. If we fail to give God the glory for revelation, we can’t back up our claims. Theologians do that sometimes.

On the other hand, if we claim God revealed something to us He didn’t reveal, we’ve committed the God-wildcard fallacy. We can commit this fallacy by claiming the Bible says something the Bible doesn’t say.

However, persuaders usually mention the God-wildcard fallacy as a silly intimidation trick. They’re trying to keep God out of the conversation. In other words, this fallacy is usually fallacy abuse. A persuader creates a phantom fallacy, a form of intimidation fallacy. In this intimidation fallacy, the persuader calls any mention of God “the God-wildcard fallacy.” In these cases, we haven’t committed the fallacy. Why would knowing Jesus Christ be a fallacy? It wouldn’t. Knowing Christ is the only rational way to reason beyond immediate sensory experience.

No persuader can argue against God or the Bible rationally. They base their arguments on at least one fallacy.

Examples:

Secularist: How did the universe come into existence without spontaneously creating itself from nothing? [The secularist assumes the big bang story as the neutral position but doesn’t state this assumption.]

Christian: God created it. You can read about it in the Book of Genesis. Beyond that, we don’t know.

Secularist: Hah! That’s the God-wildcard fallacy.

The secularist would need to prove God didn’t say He created everything before the Christian’s argument would be a God-wildcard fallacy. Now, the secularist could rationally ask how the Christ-follower knows God created the heavens and the earth. The Christ-follower could then tell the secularist about his relationship with Christ and invite the secularist to come to know Christ.

Sandy Sandbuilder: What material process did God use to create the universe?

Rocky Rockbuilder: I don’t know. God hasn’t revealed that to me.

Sandy: Hah! That’s the God-wildcard fallacy.

If we claim to know something that we don’t know, then we commit a fallacy, but it’s not a fallacy to admit a lack of knowledge, and it’s not a fallacy to have limited knowledge. We don’t have to know the answer to anything that God hasn’t revealed to us, so it’s not a fallacy to say, “God hasn’t revealed that to me yet.”

This weird ungodly logic assumes divine revelation is an error in logic. Ungodly logic assumes. It makes up this stuff. Divine revelation isn’t a mystery. Rather, it’s God’s revelation of reality, which is removing the mystery from what was previously unknown. Divine mystery is what we don’t yet know because God hasn’t revealed it.

Related:

science-wildcard fallacy

Golden-Hammer Fallacy

(a.k.a. Maslow’s Hammer or Universal Reply)

Using the wrong reasoning (or tool) because it’s the only reasoning (or tool) known

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Unfortunately, assumptions are a part of science. We can’t do science without making assumptions.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Why not? How about divine revelation instead of assumptions?

Sandy Sandbuilder is using assumption as a golden hammer, and assumptions consist of made-up stuff.

Naturalism is a necessary presupposition for science.

Why should naturalism be the golden hammer? Naturalism consists of made-up stuff and provides no method by which we can say the natural laws we now see are the same natural laws that will exist in an hour from now. However, God says He enforces natural laws faithfully, which gives us a reason to believe we can do science.

Persuaders who commit golden-hammer fallacies learned something about logic, but they don’t have a way to know absolute truth. They settle on a few golden hammers and use them to solve every problem and make every point.

The most common “golden hammer” is made-up stuff, and the made-up stuff is a combination of assumptions and made-up stories based on those assumptions. Made-up stuff has a null truth-value. In other words, made-up stuff lives in the unknown—not necessarily true and not necessarily false.

A chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link. That means the strength of the reasoning is zero if it uses even a single assumption. That means the made-up-stuff golden hammer is useless. And every ungodly thinker roots reason in the made-up-stuff golden hammer since no one can reason to a true premise without divine revelation. The alternative to a true premise is made-up stuff.

Even though we’re followers of Christ, we may also lean on a handful of theologies that we use as golden hammers. If our theologies add to or subtract from God’s revelation, we’re using the made-up-stuff golden hammer. Even if we have the correct theology, our theology is dead without Christ.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ is the answer to every question since He’s the truth. Of course, Jesus isn’t a tool but a person, and He alone is the Source of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. No knowledge, wisdom, or understanding is available anywhere else. And He’s also the One Who’s enforcing all the laws of nature and holding everything together. He has all power and authority. Therefore, depending on Jesus Christ doesn’t commit the golden-hammer fallacy.

If we seek Him, we find Him. He begins to lead us and purify us as we begin to have increasing wisdom. We have leading from the Holy Spirit as soon as we’re born again, yet our sensitivity to the Holy Spirit also increases as we walk in submission to the Spirit, keeping pace with the Spirit. That’s why He alone is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem.

Government-Solipotence Fallacy

Assuming that only the government can solve a certain problem

Examples:

Only the government can keep the markets competitive.

Government is the main provider of fairness.

Justice shouldn’t be for sale. All people must access justice equally, and only the government can provide that.

Godless governments show no history of providing anything of value except in certain narrow matters. God has a plan for a Kingdom in which Christ shall reign, and that Kingdom will solve every problem. In the meantime, limited government is a good idea because of human corruption and incompetence.

Problems follow when human governments try to get control so they can solve certain problems. When governments try to assure fairness, some people get a better deal than others, especially the people running the government. When governments try to assure equality, they remove the incentive to work, and everyone becomes equally poor. When godless governments try to regulate morality, they determine morality using made-up stuff. Then, they enforce immorality (political correctness). When governments try to regulate spiritual matters, they begin mass killings as we’ve seen in China, U.S.S.R., North Korea, Vietnam, I.S.I.S., Cuba, and the Holy Roman Empire.

Related:

barefoot fallacy

Grasping-at-Straws Fallacy

A desperate attempt to find some reason to believe a desired lie

Examples:

Global warming is causing the trend toward cooler temperatures over the last decade. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand how science works.

In desperate situations, persuaders give reasons that don’t even come close to creating an illusion of rationality. For example, when ungodly thinkers realize they can’t rationally reason to any conclusion but that we can rationally reason to conclusions through divine revelation, they grasp at straws.

Rocky Rockbuilder: The Münchausen trilemma destroys the ability to reason without divine revelation.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You too have the same problem since the Münchausen trilemma also destroys divine revelation.

Rocky: You just realized you can’t think rationally. You have no path to sound reason. And yet, you’re trying to reason. You’re claiming the Münchausen trilemma also destroys divine revelation. You’re claiming to know all about my inner spiritual experience. That’s amazing familiarity with what you have no way to observe. That’s not all. You’re reasoning using a horn of the Münchausen trilemma. You’re committing the axiomatic-thinking fallacy. You’re grasping at straws here. You have to solve your problem with the Münchausen trilemma before making any more claims.

Sandy: I don’t have a problem. It’s perfectly rational for me to base my reasoning on axioms. Reasoning from axioms isn’t a fallacy because axioms are obvious.

Sandy’s grasping at straws and claiming to be omniscient. He’s also claiming whatever he believes is obviously true. No conclusion can be stronger than the premises that prove the conclusion. Axioms consist of made-up stuff. Most people think their own axioms are obvious. They don’t believe the axioms of others. What does that mean? If the reasoning uses even one axiom, the conclusion is made-up stuff.

Group Fallacy

Discrediting a person because he or she belongs to a certain group

Giving a person special credibility because he or she belongs to a certain group

Examples:

You’re a creationist. Therefore, you aren’t qualified to discuss the evidence about origins.

You’re an evolutionist. Therefore, you aren’t qualified to discuss the evidence about origins.

Evolutionists look at the same evidence as creationists. Evolutionists just interpret the evidence based on assumptions and stories rather than divine revelation. And some evolutionists can’t discern between what they observe and what they make up. However, many evolutionists understand the observations. Some of them even realize their stories are just stories and their assumptions are just assumptions.

When discussing evolution with them, it’s good to keep in mind the biases and logical errors that they’re likely to make, but they may know something about the observations that we don’t know. We must just be careful to examine what they present as evidence to make sure their evidence didn’t grow from assumptions, stories, or other logical fallacies.

You don’t need to fear that they’ll have some actual proof of evolutionism since every argument for this philosophy depends on made-up stuff. We can help them understand their fallacies if we can get the evolutionists to see the basis of their arguments. However, they usually don’t want to know the basis of their arguments. They don’t want to know they’re making up their premises.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Scientists test and observe the stories of evolution happening.

Rocky Rockbuilder: OK. If that’s true, all I’m asking you for is a way I can test and observe those stories happening as you claim I can. So far, you’ve been asking me to just take your word for it without any proof, and you won’t tell me how I can test and observe the stories happening. I’ve given you a way you can know Christ with all your spiritual senses. Of course, you refuse to go there. And yet, you won’t give me a way to test and observe your stories.

Sandy: If you want to know about evolution, look up the many examples of speciation we have and get a working understanding of transitional species. Our natural history museum in Chicago is great for that. I hope one is near you. Is there a natural history museum in your area?

Rocky: I’ve been through natural history museums. And all I get is more presentations of the evolutionism stories. I get creative drawings, paintings, and sculptures. It’s like looking at cartoons of Jesus in Sunday school or sculptures in some churches.

You said, “Scientists test and observe the stories of evolution happening.” You said you could get from speciation to proving the stories of evolutionism happened. You said you could do it without assuming anything. I can’t test or observe the stories of evolutionism happening in the natural history museum. I wouldn’t ask you to trust Jesus based on cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of Jesus. I ask you to meet with Him, which you refuse. Why do you ask me to accept stories and creative drawings? You aren’t telling me that you were gullible enough to accept that as proof, are you?

Sandy Sandbuilder gave special credibility to the natural history museum in Chicago, a credibility he wouldn’t give to churches showing the same form of evidence. That’s a form of group fallacy. Since the museums are controlled by evolutionists, Sandy trusts them. They’re part of that special class of those whom he will trust. He also said, “Scientists test and observe the stories of evolution happening.” Who specifically tested and observed them? How did they test and observe them? When Rocky asked, he found out Sandy’s testing and observing wasn’t real testing and observing. Of course, he already knew no one has observed millions of years.

Rather than the word “group,” we could use the word “set” or “class.” In other words, a “group” is a certain class or set of people. For example, we could define a group as degreed people. We could define another group as non-degreed people. Here are some other examples of groups:

• atheists
• Muslims
• Hindus
• ungodly thinkers
• all who call themselves Christians
• followers of Christ
• evolutionists
• men
• women
• Democrats
• Republicans

Membership in a group doesn’t confirm or deny a group-member’s statement. The group may make it impossible for group members to rationally reason to a conclusion. That’s how it is with the group called ungodly thinkers. That still doesn’t automatically deny every statement that ungodly thinkers make. Ungodly thinkers can observe. They can react to their observations. They can be accurate when they stay within their observations and avoid trying to reason beyond their observations.

Groupthink Fallacy

(a.k.a. Group-Held Paradigm)

A shared fake reality that limits the thinking of a group of people

Examples:

Theologian: I’m just quoting Scripture here.

He had just spent half an hour going over group-held speculations that go beyond what Scripture says about the subject. He doesn’t realize he never quoted a single verse of Scripture. Groupthink holds the theologian captive. Groups can develop groupthink on any topic. These topics can vary from end-times prophecy to salvation to predestination to Church order to anything else.

Certain sacred cows have developed within the scientific community over time. The elites protect these sacred cows and enforce groupthink. Anyone who disagrees with them will suffer consequences. They’ll have trouble getting tenure, lose their jobs, or endure other punishment.

Evolutionist: We’re simply looking at the scientific facts.

When pressed, the evolutionist must admit he or she is defining “scientific facts” as including made-up stuff. The made-up stuff consists of stories, concepts, ideas, viewpoints, underpinnings, and assumptions (body of knowledge) believed by the insiders of a group of scientists. However, evolutionists will tell us we ought to trust this insider group of scientists, and they’ll give us some sort of rationalization for this blind trust.

Groupthink keeps the group-members from thinking outside the group’s “box.” This “box” is a group-held paradigm. The paradigm is a fake reality. Confirmation bias reinforces the fake reality. A group-held fake reality limits progress and knowledge more than individual fake realities. Group reward and punishment systems give power to confirmation bias. For instance, saying anything that conflicts with the fake reality will result in pressure. The pressure may include ridicule, gossip, shunning, and dirty tricks. The group excludes anyone who persistently refuses to accept the paradigm.

Related:

team-player fallacy

Guilt-by-Association-Ad-Hominem Fallacy

(a.k.a. Bad-Company Fallacy, The-Company-that-You-Keep Fallacy, or Ex Concessis)

Associating a person or position with something or someone negative (or seen to be negative) to discredit that person or position rather than using sound reasoning

Example:

Hugh Ross blames those who believe what God is saying about the Genesis Flood through Scripture for those who don’t accept Christ as Savior. He cites a TV documentary about an alleged discovery of the Ark since some disbelievers used this documentary as a target for contempt. Hugh Ross then uses the guilt-by-association fallacy to link all who believe what God says about the Genesis Flood and Noah’s Ark to this documentary.

Guilt-by-Accusation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Guilt by Allegation, Guilty Until Proven Innocent)

Accepting an accusation without proof.

it’s not a question of proof, it’s a question of allegations!

I made the accusation. It’s up to you to prove me wrong.

We’ve all been falsely accused at some time. And we felt bad when many of our friends accepted the lying gossip about us. Some even repeated it. This is exactly what they did to Jesus. And Jesus said if we suffer from false accusations for His sake, we are blessed. We should be happy because of the reward coming our way.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. ~ Exodus 20:16 King James Bible

We’ve witnessed this fallacy on a small scale in our own lives. Guilt by accusation gets bigger than life on the fake news media. Preachers trying to promote themselves or their organizations use the same trick. Politicians skillfully accuse others. Sometimes, they’re trying to get something. Sometimes they’re trying to destroy someone who is opposing or competing with them. Sometimes, they accuse others to build a following. Sometimes, they envy or hate the person they accuse.

Some people say the Law of Moses is too strict. And yet, the Law of Moses shows more mercy than accusers today. In the Law of Moses, two or three eyewitnesses must confirm every word. However, today’s courts often allow hearsay evidence. Our courts convict some people based on one person’s word. Often, prosecutors hide evidence that proves the accusations false. Some juries get swept up in emotional appeals or political appeals and convict innocent people. That’s happening in our courts, but what’s going on in our jobs, churches, and friendships. What do we see in the news media, political arena, and entertainment industry?

This fallacy contains an appeal-to-ignorance fallacy as a smokescreen to hide the fact that the entire accusation consists of made-up stuff. If we try to give the illusion made-up stuff is real, we’re committing the axiomatic-thinking fallacy. We could just call it lying. Often this fallacy also uses other smokescreen fallacies like outright lies, motivated reasoning, or mind-reading like reading motivations into other people’s actions.

Guilt-Induction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Guilt)

Using guilt as a reason to believe a proposition

Did you say homosexuality is a sin against God? You ought to be ashamed. You ought to feel so guilty.

This reaction is a powerful method of mind control through intimidation, in this case, to promote something God forbids. Inducing guilt has no power to change reality, so it’s a fallacy to try to induce guilt as proof. The guilt proves nothing. It only manipulates. In this case, it’s an attempt to put darkness for light and light for darkness.

Woe unto 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! ~ Isaiah 5:20

Ungodly persuaders sometimes try to induce guilt in a person who follows Christ and listens to what Christ is saying through Scripture. However, guilt induction has no power to change God’s mind on any matter. It has no power to change reality.

This fallacy sears consciences. In the Bible, the word, “sin,” comes from a word that means “miss the target” or “stray from the pathway.” Jesus says He is the pathway and the life. He tells us the pathway is narrow and restricted. It’s the pathway leading to life while other paths lead to death. That means Jesus is both the way and the destination. He’s the pathway and the life.

God sometimes checks us in our spirits when we’re wrong. If we leave the pathway, He causes us to wake up and return to the path that leads to life.

Lies take us off the path. They put us on a path leading to death. Whatever isn’t of faith is sin. Sin is the act of leaving the path that leads to life. Christ leads us. He speaks His will into our hearts. When we hear it, listen, and acknowledge Him, faith comes. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by God’s utterance. Faith gives access into grace and grace does God’s works. This process crucifies the fleshly nature and builds up the mind of Christ in us. ^{(Galatians 4:19)} It changes our nature, making us holy and setting us free from sin’s slavery (redemption).

Sin reverses this process.

Other Examples:

• Many non-profit organizations use guilt to shake money out of people, yet the top officials are sometimes making huge salaries, and only a small portion of the donations go to the cause.
• Guilt (and envy) is a huge political motivator. We see it in political speeches and advertisements.

Guilt can’t prove something is true, so trying to make someone feel guilty isn’t a rational way to prove something is true. Of course, it’s common for people with irrational beliefs to try to induce guilt in those who disagree with their beliefs. For instance, persuaders use the guilt-induction fallacy to convince us to support many evil things like abortion on demand, sexual perversions, and political agendas based on envy.

On the other hand, guilt is a real and helpful thing that lets us know when we’ve violated our consciences. We can, however, sear our consciences, so they can become unreliable if we continually disobey God’s leading. We should be ashamed sometimes as God tells us:

Were they ashamed because they did what was repugnant to God? They were not ashamed at all—they don’t even know how to blush! Therefore they’ll fall with those who fall. When I punish them, they’ll be brought down,” says the LORD. ~ Jeremiah 6:15

Halo-Effect Fallacy

(a.k.a. Honor by Association)

Applying the positive attributes of one person, organization, product, etc. to another

Morgan Freeman is a spiritual person and a great actor. He appears to be very level-headed and intelligent, so we can believe him. He says evolution is a fact of science.

That’s an example of the halo effect. There’s no reason to believe Morgan Freeman is a science expert. And even if he were, we would need to evaluate his claims on the claim’s own merit rather than Morgan Freeman’s fame. Scientists or scholars often benefit from the halo effect. They avoid having anyone examine their ideas on the merit of their ideas alone.

. . . and I look like nobody, but I attended a lecture by Hans Beta who won the Nobel Prize for discovering . . . ~ Bill Nye

Here, Bill may look like nobody, but he achieved a halo effect by attending a lecture by Hans Beta.

Related:

reverse-halo fallacy

Harassment Fallacy

Reasoning based on provocation rather than a true premise

Persuaders often use the harassment fallacy and appeal-to-fear fallacy for message control. For instance, trolling on the Internet is message control through harassment. Despots use government agencies to silence certain religious views or political views. Ungodly people also used harassment and coercion to take over governmental power positions, education, news, and entertainment.

Hasty-Generalization Fallacy

(a.k.a. False Generalization, Glittering Generalities, Jumping to Conclusions, Hasty Decision, Leaping to Conclusions, Where There’s Smoke There’s Fire, Lonely Fact, or Proof by Example)

Making a claim based on incomplete or inadequate evidence

Examples:

All religions are basically the same with only superficial differences.

It may appear this way to an ungodly thinker at first glance. However, the opposite is the case. All religions are basically different with only superficial similarities.

Science shows us humans are a part of the universe that became self-aware.

How does science show us that, and what’s the method by which we can prove that to ourselves? Science doesn’t show us that. Some people may claim it, but it’s a bare claim we can’t prove.

We can see the shapes of finch beaks changing over time. Therefore, we have seen molecules-to-humanity evolution in action.

To generalize is to make a wider application from a narrower fact. Scientists have observed the finch’s beaks changing over time and then changing back over time depending on the food source. However, they generalize from this narrow observation to a supposed history that no one can observe. God pre-programmed the information into the finches’ cells. Each cell contains coded information systems. Those systems change the size of the beak to accommodate changing food supplies. We know, by divine revelation, God designed finches with this ability.

A hasty generalization could be a claim based on a small data sample. Someone may make a claim without considering all the variables.

Hate-Mongering Fallacy

Using strong dislike to persuade

Inciting strong dislike to persuade

The use of network news, movies, universities, and all forms of media to try to stir up hate against a group of people

Examples:

Like Holocaust deniers, creationists of all sorts can only make their case by distorting the work of real scholars, dealing dishonestly with the public, and manipulating the weaknesses of the media. ~ Salon

That’s a lie. We prove Creation the only way anyone can prove anything, by divine revelation. Besides the lie, the comparison to Holocaust deniers stirs up hate against those who follow Christ. It’s hate-mongering.

So, I want everyone to consider, If we accept Ken Ham’s point of view . . . that the Bible, as translated into American English, serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means … It means that Ken Ham’s word, or his interpretation of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky. It’s a troubling and unsettling point of view, and it’s one I very much would like you to address when you come back. ~ Bill Nye

When Bill said Ken “and his followers will interpret that for you,” he’s trying to incite emotion against Ken Ham. He’s implying Ken is trying to control the members of the audience. That’s a form of hate-mongering. Bill Nye tried to make Ken look like a cult leader. However, God’s Spirit is much bigger than Ken Ham. God is doing something in the earth much bigger than a single person. We don’t have any big shots in the body of Christ even though God gives some of us more responsibility and authority. We each are responsible for seeking God’s mind to know we’re fulfilling the work He’s sending us to do, and He’s doing this work through us by the power of His Spirit.

Bill falsely implied few Americans believe God as He speaks through Scripture, but, according to recent polls, about 45 percent of Americans say they believe in biblical Creation. Most Americans don’t believe the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story. These are productive contributors to society, and many are scientists in such fields as chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. Bill Nye is trying to demonize and marginalize, to paint Ken Ham as some sort of cult leader with a few misguided followers. Both demonizing and marginalizing are logical fallacies meant to stir hate in the crowd rather than to deal rationally with the issue.

Head-in-the-Sand Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ostrich Fallacy)

Ignoring a problem

Ignoring reality

Denying reality

Example:

• An ungodly persuader on an Internet discussion group runs into a Christ-follower who won’t accept any reasoning based on made-up stuff, so the ungodly persuader suddenly leaves the conversation. We would think this ungodly persuader would do a little self-reflection and wonder about the basis of her thinking, but she doesn’t. Instead, she continues to argue with other Christians who have a purely theoretical understanding of Christ.
• A follower of Christ tells an atheist God revealed Himself to the atheist, so God doesn’t accept atheist’s excuses. The atheist is in denial. The atheist says the Christ-follower has no way of knowing what God has revealed to him. The atheist is claiming to know the inner spiritual experience of the Christ-follower. The Christ-follower is claiming to know the inner spiritual experience of the atheist. The Christ-follower makes his claim based on divine revelation. God reveals it through Scripture in the first chapter of Romans. God reveals more in this chapter. The atheist is suppressing the truth of God in his deceitful trickery. The atheist, on the other hand, is making his claim about what the Christ-follower can or cannot know based on made-up stuff. The atheist has no way of knowing what God has revealed to the Christ-follower.

With the head-in-the-sand fallacy, a thinker refuses to consider certain information, usually because it conflicts with either a personal or group-held worldview.

Heart Fallacy

(a.k.a. Follow-Your-Heart Fallacy or Look-Within-Yourself Fallacy)

Looking within the human mind for answers

Examples:

Follow your heart. ~ Andrew Matthews

When you follow your heart, you cease having regrets. ~ Dr. Nikki Martinez, Psy.D., LCPC

Those who don’t know Christ don’t have Christ within. They can have Christ within if they decide to, but without Christ, they don’t have Christ. Looking within, they have only their own fleshly minds and spirits.

The heart is deceitful above all things. ~ Jeremiah 17:9a King James Bible

Since we’ve come to know Christ, we don’t commit a fallacy as followers of Christ when we look for leading from Christ within. We do, however, commit a fallacy when we look to our own fallen minds or emotions for guidance. Currently, the Holy Spirit is teaching us to know the difference between God’s mind (good) and our own minds (evil).

Hedging Fallacy

(a.k.a. Hedging Your Bet, Plausible Deniability, Having Your Cake, Failure to Assert, Diminished Claim, Failure to Choose Sides, Talking out of Both Sides of Your Mouth, If by Whiskey, or Weasel Words)

Communicating in a way that allows more than one interpretation so a persuader can re-interpret the statement if someone questions it

Examples:

Fairness May Have Evolved from Spite. ~ Live Science article

The statement from Live Science seems like it says something, but it says nothing. It uses fluffy hedge-type language. Live Science can move the goalposts if anyone challenges the statement since the language isn’t specific. How could fairness have evolved? That’s a problem for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story.

In particular, much remains unknown about what forms of prebiotic organic chemistry could have been possible at vents, and whether they could have produced abundant biological precursors. ~ PNAS Commentary

The statement says nothing, but it pretends to tell us something. Notice the word “could” in two places. That’s how scientists use hedging in scientific peer-reviewed journals.

In politics, the term “plausible deniability” gives a hedge to high-ranking office-holders. In this way, a top elected or appointed official can direct illegal activity and deny knowledge of the crime should the crime be exposed.

In a hedging fallacy, a persuader states a claim or theory unclearly. That way the persuader can modify, refine, or change it if most people don’t accept it or someone finds evidence against it.

Observable Chemistry Does Not Logically Apply to the Origin of Life

Hidden-Assumption Fallacy

Coming to conclusions based on one or more assumptions without realizing the assumptions exist

Making claims based on assumptions without stating the assumptions openly or completely

Implying assumptions are facts everyone must accept, thus hiding that they’re mere assumptions

To assume is to pretend. Assuming is making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true. Making it more deceptive, persuaders often hide assumptions. They state them as facts. They state them with false bravado. They hide them by circular-reasoning or statistical fallacies. They hide them by not mentioning them. The purpose of smokescreen fallacies is to hide assumptions or make them look like part of reality.

If a thinker doesn’t base reason on divine revelation, the thinker bases reason on assumptions. Assumptions are unknowns that we treat as facts. If we treat unknowns as facts, we aren’t thinking rationally.

Hidden-Presupposition Fallacy

Coming to conclusions based on one or more unstated presuppositions

Making claims based on presuppositions without stating the presuppositions openly or completely

Implying that presuppositions are facts

Embedding presuppositions into language

Using assumptive language

Example:

Since we can’t verify God, we must exclude God from science. Since we must exclude God from science, every scientific conclusion must attest to the non-existence of God.

The word “since” presupposes everything after it. And those of us who follow Christ know we can verify God. Every person who seeks God finds God. We know this by divine revelation. Whatever God says is a fact. We also know God reveals Himself to every person, but ungodly people find ways to avoid acknowledging Him and glorifying Him. The ungodly persuader who made this claim must prove the claim rather than presupposing the claim using the word “since.” However, ungodly thinkers can’t reason beyond their observations without committing axiomatic-thinking fallacies. Since this ungodly thinker can’t possibly observe his claim without being all-knowing, his claim goes beyond his ability to observe. Therefore, his claim is based on made-up stuff.

A thinker accepts a hidden assumption as fact, so the assumption seems like part of reality. So it looks like reality, but it’s only a presupposition.

Hifalutin’-Denunciations Fallacy

Vague, but grandiose, language used to speak against something or someone

Example:

[Ken Ham] doesn’t even try to understand science; he even said during his debate with Bill Nye that nothing would change his mind. Ken Ham is a closed-minded bigot. ~ Harvested from YouTube.com

The context was the Nye-Ham debate. The phrase, “doesn’t understand science” is a meaningless cliché from someone trying to make a case against God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. There’s no information in this personal attack. Ken was open to changing his mind about theories or theologies, while Bill Nye was closed-minded and dogmatic about his theologies and theories/stories. The person writing this post didn’t define “science,” but, from context, we could guess the person posting thought “science” means “atheism.”

Hindsight-Bias Fallacy

(a.k.a. Knew-it-All-Along Effect, Postdiction, Retro-Diction, or Creeping Determinism)

Believing that an event is predictable when it isn’t

Claiming a prediction supports a theory when the supposed “prediction” is a postdiction created as an explanation of an unexpected observation

Example:

What do mice and fruit flies have in common? On the surface, you’d not think much, but geneticists have discovered that some of their genes are practically identical. Discoveries like this are often touted as proof of evolution because the similar genes supposedly show mice and fruit flies are related.

But evolutionary scientists did not predict this. Genetics professor Sean Caroll confessed, “No biologist had even the foggiest notion that such similarities could exist between genes of such different animals.” ~ Evolution’s Failed Predictions

Persuaders who use hindsight bias claim to make predictions, but they predict the event after the event. It’s a postdiction. Before the event, they had no reason to predict the event. After the event, they create a new story and claim the story is a prediction of the event.

https://creation.com/media-center/youtube/evolutions-failed-predictions

Hobson’s-Choice Fallacy

A choice offered between one thing and nothing

Example:

The diversity is overwhelming, and evolution is the only explanation! ~ Berkeley Website

But it’s not the only explanation. It’s just the only explanation that ungodly thinkers will consider. Hobson’s choice is a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum where no other choice is offered even though other choices are available.

Homonymy Fallacy

Using a word that has two meanings when either meaning could make sense in the sentence

Examples:

evolution [observed adaptations] versus evolution [an unobserved story about one-celled living organisms turning into ever-more-complex creatures over extended periods]

faith [making believe without any evidence] versus faith [absolute proof based on God’s utterance]

love [sexual attraction] versus love [God’s nature and holiness that resides in those who follow Christ]

Related:

lexical-ambiguity fallacy

Hooded-Man Fallacy

(a.k.a. Masked-Man Fallacy)

Thinking two names given to the same thing are referring to different things

In a hooded-man fallacy, two names are given to the same thing, but it’s thought they’re different things.

Examples:

I know my brother. I don’t know that hooded man. Therefore, my brother isn’t that hooded man. [But the brother is the hooded man.]

A theory isn’t a concept. [But a theory is a concept.]

An assumption isn’t made-up stuff. [But an assumption is made-up stuff.]

An axiom isn’t an assumption. [But an axiom is an assumption.]

An assumption isn’t a supposition. [But an assumption is a supposition.]

A presupposition isn’t a form of supposition. [But a presupposition is a form of supposition.]

Related:

intensional fallacy, intensional context, illicit-substitution-of-identicals fallacy, epistemic fallacy, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing-ontology-and-epistemology fallacy

Human-Goodness Fallacy

Asserting human goodness

Examples:

Most people are basically good.

I’m a good person.

Secular University: You graduates, go out and do good things.

God says otherwise.

For there is not a single righteous man on earth who practices good and does not sin. ~ Ecclesiastes 7:20 International Standard Version

and everything that is not from faith is sin. ~ Romans 14:23b Berean Study Bible

Without Christ and the Holy Spirit’s leading and power, many people who are trying to do good works are actually causing great damage and pain and doing destructive and hurtful works.

The human-goodness fallacy is an assertion contrary to fact. We know it’s a fallacy by divine revelation through Scripture. Claims to the contrary conflict with both Scripture and the world around us.

Hyperbole Fallacy

(a.k.a. Extreme Exaggeration)

Making a claim with extreme overstatement

Example:

There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham, and that’s the problem for me. ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye committed the ad-hominem and unsupported-assertion fallacies to commit hyperbole. Bill asserts a lie by claiming only Ken Ham believes what God says about the Bible being His word without error. Bill’s assertion is hyperbole. It’s an extreme exaggeration of the truth. The truth is about half of all Americans believe what God says through Scripture about the Creation and the Flood.

Hyperbole could also include extreme exaggeration in a straw-man argument.

Hypocrisy Fallacy

Claiming to have virtue not really there

Examples:

• A politician who has covered up many crimes against women presents herself as the champion of women’s rights.
• A group of people who claim to be anti-fascist use fascist tactics on peaceful citizens because they disagree with the religious and political views of those citizens.
• A political party that started the KKK and has had many members who were high-ranking clansmen suddenly denies being racist and accuses the other political party of supporting the KKK.
• A human being claims to be a good person.

In hypocrisy, a fallen human being uses some method to claim righteousness, but no one is good but God. While Christ can do His righteousness through us, we can’t self-generate righteousness. We can receive the gift of righteousness if we yield to the Holy Spirit.

Hypostatization Fallacy

Thinking a concept or idea is part of reality

Attributing reality to something unreal

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m waiting for you to tell me about these alternative cosmologies. Since you refer to them in the plural, I assume they are not that good. The real explanation requires only one, not plural.

Rocky Rockbuilder: The real explanation? A cosmology is a speculative explanation. It goes beyond what scientists can see. That’s why no real cosmological explanation exists. All these explanations are speculations. They’re concepts. You’re confusing reality with concept. When you confuse the real world with ideas in your mind, you commit a hypostatization fallacy. Reality is important. You’re living in the land of make-believe.

To hypostatize is to treat an idea as reality. A hypostatization is an idea falsely thought to be reality. Hypostatizations are never part of reality. They’re always concepts.

Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Speculum, Speculative Fallacy, What-If Fallacy, or Wouldchuck)

A speculative explanation that can’t be true

A hypothesis is a speculative explanation. However, if the hypothesis conflicts with known facts, it’s a hypothesis contrary to fact. Of course, a known fact is a proven fact, but we can’t prove anything is true without divine revelation.

Hysteron-Proteron Fallacy

Using a claim as a premise when the claim isn’t proved

Examples:

Molecules-to-humanity evolution is an established fact of science.” [That’s an example of the logical fallacy of hysteron proteron. It’s an unproven statement. Repeatedly declaring it to be a proved fact of science doesn’t make it so.]

Molecules-to-humanity evolution conflicts with the Bible. [That’s true.]

Therefore, the Bible contains errors since it doesn’t conform to an established fact of science. [That’s false.]

The persuader’s first premise commits the hysteron proteron fallacy. The persuader can’t rationally say a conclusion is true unless the persuader has proved the premises. Since the persuader didn’t prove the first premise, the argument is unsound. In this case, the persuader used a false first premise.

A clear series of transitional forms shows land-dwelling animals evolved into whales – clearly a change of one kind into another kind.

A persuader wrote that statement as a premise on a blog. She linked to a BioLogos page that goes through the standard, creative, and imaginary story about whales turning into land animals. The persuader claimed the series of transitional forms is clear. However, the persuader showed an excellent example of the hysteron-proteron fallacy. Neither the persuader nor the BioLogos page showed a clear series of transitional fossils that prove the imaginary story about whales turning into land animals.

The ungodly thinking problem prevents a true premise. Without divine revelation, all premises are hysteron proteron. We must receive the premises through divine revelation. There’s no other way to prove a premise is true.

We sometimes call a premise an “assumption,” but assumptions can’t be premises in sound logic. We haven’t contradicted ourselves though. We call premises “assumptions” because we test the form of logic first, then we make sure the premises are true. Until we’re sure the form is valid, we assume the premises are true, but we don’t claim the logic is sound. The logic hasn’t been tested until we know the premises are true and the form is valid. We just assume the premises for the moment as we check to see whether the form is valid.

Our minds are limited. We can’t hold many complex thoughts at once. So we look at each step of reasoning on its own. That’s why we assume each premise is true while we check the form. If the form is invalid, we don’t care if the premises are true or false. Logic with bad form doesn’t prove anything. If the form is valid, we stop assuming the premises are true and ask for proof for the premises. If we can’t prove the premise, the logic isn’t sound and it proves nothing.

Consider a premise (P) and a conclusion (C). If we evaluate whether C is true assuming P is true, we first decide whether P being true means that C must be true. For this moment, we assume P is true. It’s too much to analyze the truth-value of P and the soundness of this piece of reasoning at the same time. That’s why we assume P for the moment. In other words, P is an assumption at this point. However, we can’t leave it there since we must guard against allowing assumptions to seem as if they were facts. That’s why we must find out whether P is true.

So here’s the question we ask: can P stand on its own, or does P need proof? If we need to prove P, we need a premise. And if we need to prove this premise, then we can’t know P is true so we can’t know C is true. Therefore, we can’t know the answer unless we find something true without needing further proof.

If we can’t prove the premise, we commit a hysteron-proteron fallacy. The logic isn’t sound. And divine revelation is the only premise that can stand on its own. That’s because God knows everything and God can’t lie. We ask for proof of all other claims. We either prove these claims with divine revelation or scrap them as hysteron proteron.

In the secular world, all logic is hysteron proteron. That’s because ungodly thinkers base all thinking on made-up stuff. Even when God reveals reality to them and they accept that revelation, they attribute that revelation to something other than God. They’ll call it a presupposition, assumption, gut feeling, intuition, or something else. Therefore, they base all their logic on premises they can’t prove. They defend axiomatic thinking as the following example shows:

Ungodly Thinking: You misunderstand how axioms work. An axiom is a starting point for reasoning. Axioms do not have to be true to work, but they do need to be true for the results of your reasoning to be consistent with reality. For example, you can reason from “God is necessary for reason” as your own axiom, which you take to be true, and arrive at various conclusions. Those conclusions, however, are not binding on anyone who doesn’t share your axiom. And it is your axiom, not God’s, as you’re the one reasoning here, not God. You’re as bound by axiomatic thinking as everybody else.

That almost seems impressive until we evaluate the logic. Let’s break it into its parts as follows:

Ungodly Thinking: Axioms must be true for the results of thinking to be consistent with reality.

Critical Thinking: That’s a confusing statement since axioms are never known to be true. If they were known to be true, they wouldn’t be axioms. They’re assumed to be true.

Ungodly Thinking: You can reason from “God is necessary for reason” as your own axiom.

Critical Thinking: You’re trying to project the ungodly thinking problem onto those of us who follow Christ. If we follow Christ, we don’t reason from axioms. We reason from divine revelation except when we fail to listen to Christ. Ungodly thinking wants us to assume Christ isn’t real and to ignore Him when He reveals reality to us.

Ungodly Thinking: You’re the one reasoning here. You’re as bound by axiomatic thinking as anyone else.

Critical Thinking: Ungodly thinking assumes God can’t reveal anything to us (or anyone else) in a way that He can cause us to discern His voice from all others. However, Christ leads, teaches, and corrects everyone who follows Him. Anyone can test this. No one has to take anyone else’s word for it.

Summary:

Sound logic can lead to knowledge of truth. Unsound logic can’t lead to knowledge of truth. Sound logic requires a true premise and valid deductive form. Only divine revelation can give us a true premise. Other claims are made-up stuff. They’re axiomatic-thinking fallacies.

The battle is for the mind. God is dealing with the human tendency to make up stuff and reason from the made-up stuff. Hence, the Holy Spirit is constantly teaching, leading, and correcting everyone who follows Christ. Ungodly thinking presumes to know about a limitation of God that keeps God from performing His promise to us. Ungodly thinking also presumes to know all about the spiritual experiences of every person who has ever lived.

The evidence for Jesus Christ and His authority is Jesus Christ Himself since anyone can know Him. Ungodly thinkers refuse to humble themselves to know Jesus Christ. Therefore, they refuse to examine the evidence. They could easily validate and verify Christ (the evidence), but they refuse to do so. They ignore invitations to know Christ.

Ungodly thinking can’t validate or verify any claim. Every ungodly thinking claim depends on an axiom (made-up stuff) with no way to verify or validate the made-up stuff. However, ungodly thinkers believe whatever they make up is true since they label the made-up stuff “axiom.”

The problem consists of divine revelation versus made-up stuff.

Idiosyncratic-Language Fallacy

Loading words or phrases with personal meanings rather than commonly understood meanings

Examples:

A premise is an assumption in logic, so it’s logical to base reason on assumptions.

A sound logical argument has true premises. An assumption is something that we believe without knowing whether it’s true. Therefore, when we use the word, “assumption,” to mean, “premise,” we’re using idiosyncratic language. If we don’t explain ourselves, we confuse people. Many philosophy students don’t understand the idiosyncrasy. We momentarily assume the premise when evaluating the form for validity. That’s just a convenience since it’s difficult to think about everything at once. So, we check the form first. Once we have valid form, we look at the premise. We must prove the premise is true, or the logic is unsound. This idiosyncratic language confuses students who ask questions about it, and these students receive confusing or misleading answers.

To make matters worse, those people who write about and teach science and logic sometimes call known observations “assumptions.” They make no distinction between these non-assumptions and assumptions.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Do you believe Jesus is God?

Sandy Sandbuilder: Yes, I believe Jesus is God.

Sandy Sandbuilder means he believes Jesus is a god, one of many.

Fundamentalist Christians gathered with just one goal . . . Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. ~ heard on the news

Christians coined the word, “fundamentalist,” but fake news media applied the word to Muslim terrorists to deceive their audiences using idiosyncratic language.

Idiosyncratic language causes misunderstandings, and sometimes persuaders use idiosyncratic language because they want to use those misunderstandings to manipulate others. That’s why it’s important to agree on the meanings of words when discussing any topic. And we commit a fallacy that deceives ourselves or others if we change the meanings of words without bringing attention to the changed meanings.

Examples of Word Confusion:

• The meanings of words are constantly changing, and new technologies lead to new word meanings that can confuse us.
• The English of the King James Translation isn’t the English of today, and that can confuse us if we don’t understand the differences.
• The Bible defines words like “faith,” “grace,” “hope,” “wisdom,” and “righteousness.” However, society gives different meanings to those words, so we must carefully define these words to assure understanding.
• Many people define “science” and “evidence” as assumptions and made-up stories, but these are idiosyncratic meanings of the words “science” and “evidence.” Idiosyncratic definitions of “science” and “evidence” deceive many people.

Idola-Fori Fallacy

(a.k.a. Idols of the Market Place)

Using nouns (persons, places, or things) to give a false impression of reality

Two kinds of idola fori:

• Giving Names to Nonexistent Things
• Confused or Ill-Defined Names

Idola-Fori Fallacy (Giving Names to Nonexistent Things)

Persuaders name things that don’t exist. A persuader talks about “evolution” and means small steps of living organisms transforming from one kind to another over millions of years. This persuader is like the man who talked about the magic green money bird that brings money to your house if you can attract the magic green money bird to your back yard. No one observed the magic green money bird. No one observed molecules-to-humanity evolution. The persuader uses the word “evolution” as a name for something that doesn’t exist. And yet, when the persuader repeatedly talks about evolution he can fool many people into believing evolution is something. If many people also repeat the same message, it begins to sound real. A flat-earth society currently exists that uses the same principle to promote nonsense.

Examples of Names for Nonexistent or Unobserved Things:

• evolution [meaning molecules to humankind]
• big bang
• billions of years
• abiogenesis

Idola-Fori Fallacy (Confused or Ill-Defined Names)

Persuaders mention names of existing things but confuse those names or define those names poorly.

Examples of Confused or Ill-Defined Names:

• faith
• science
• evidence
• evolution

Explanations:

• A persuader mentions the term “faith” but doesn’t define it. Some people define it as making believe. Others define it as a gift of accurate, precise certainty of reality and absolutely certain proof from God, a gift Christ authors by speaking His leading and teaching to us.
• A persuader mentions the term “science” without defining it. Some people define it as trying to know by mixing made-up stuff with observation. Others define “science” as testing and observing that leads to practical solutions. Those solutions work until they find better solutions.
• Another persuader defines “evidence” without defining it. Some people define “evidence” as interpretation of observations based on made-up stuff. Others define it as absolute proof resulting in certainty.
• “Evolution” fits both types of idola fori. Three meanings of the word “evolution” confuse and deceive people. A persuader can use each one of these examples to deceive us by confusing the meanings of words.

Idola-Specus Fallacy

(a.k.a. Idols of the Cave)

Letting biases lead to errors in thinking

Examples:

Of course, naturalism is a fact. We observe it everywhere.

This persuader uses observation of the natural world to claim the spiritual world doesn’t exist. However, we can’t observe the non-existence of the spiritual world.

This is settled science.

When a persuader uses the term “settled science,” we see idola specus since the term demonstrates bias. Science gives us tentative, assumption-based opinion. If we think science is settled, we stop progress and innovation. The term “settled science” causes poor technology decisions.

Everyone commits idola-specus fallacies. Everyone has bias. That’s not to say every person commits the idola-specus fallacy all the time. However, everyone commits this fallacy at times since we’re all biased.

Idola-Theatri Fallacy

(a.k.a. Idols of the Theater)

Allowing the human mind to regard fabrications as facts

The Idola-Theatri Fallacy occurs when the human mind seems drawn to believe fallacies rather than truth.

. . . because in my judgment all the received systems are but so many stage plays, representing worlds of their own creation after an unreal and scenic fashion. ~ Sir Francis Bacon

That’s the state of the human mind in its unregenerated form since humanity fell into slavery to the father of lies. Consider how many people respect stories, stories about a big bang, billions of years, no Flood, abiogenesis, and Darwinism especially. The ungodly thinking problem destroys all secular thinking. If we use the naturalistic presupposition as any part of our thinking, then we the ungodly thinking problem destroys our thinking. A chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. This chain must begin with something absolute, yet ungodly thinkers can only begin their reasoning with made-up stuff and smokescreen fallacies.

The idola-theatri fallacy concerns idols that become parts of our worldviews. We receive dogmas, philosophies, or faulty ways of trying to find truth. We put these into our worldviews. We receive these false concepts through movies, classes, books, lectures, and debates. We receive them from seminars, conversations, rationalizations, visualizations, and many other means. They become strongholds of our minds.

Idola-Tribus Fallacy

(a.k.a. Idols of the Tribe)

Being deceived by the natural human tendencies to make errors in thinking based on the following: the lens of the worldview, desires of the innermost mind, dullness and deception of the senses, or interpretations of impressions

This fallacy includes the following tendencies:

• to imagine more order than exists
• to use every observation to confirm one’s own inner worldview
• to think all creation is like what stirs our emotions and imagination
• to think there can be no limit or end to the world
• to believe what’s preferred to be true
• to allow what strikes the senses more vividly to have more importance than what is more subtle when the more subtle may be more important
• to think concepts are real

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Worldview)

Using one’s own worldview as a lens or filter to interpret everything else

I base my view on common sense.

This persuader thinks all people hold a common sense of reality. However, each person bases “common sense” on his or her own worldview. Members of a group may share parts of their worldviews. They may bond based on those points of commonality. If they’re particularly deluded, they may claim their shared concept of common sense proves their shared opinion.

Idola tribus is universal since everyone has a worldview. We each see life through the illusion that our own worldview is real. These inner concepts of reality seem more real than reality. Each inner concept seems real to the person who owns the concept. Worldviews act as our personal lenses, filtering every experience and observation. Only the Holy Spirit can overcome this problem. That’s why the weapons of our warfare are spiritual to the tearing down of strongholds.

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Desire)

Using one’s own preferences as a filter to interpret everything else

This is true since it’s what I prefer to believe.

I can’t stand thinking God exists or anyone can know God.

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Sensory Limitation)

Using limited human knowledge and senses as a lens or filter to interpret everything else

The tendency to think our own experiences are the fullness of what is possible

Since we can only physically observe the physical world, the physical world is all that exists.

Since I can’t see God with my natural eyes, I refuse to believe He exists. I pretend to have an open mind, but I refuse to look at any evidence. Therefore, I will not seek Him and find Him in the spiritual realm.

Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Sensory Deception)

Using one’s own senses and the resulting impressions as a filter to interpret everything else

Persuaders and circumstances can trick our senses. Our impressions can deceive us. The brute-beast human mind can’t think rationally. It can’t reason beyond immediate information it’s taking in from the senses. However, it also trusts impressions of the information from the five senses. It then interprets those impressions using assumptions that come from the worldview. Sin controls this mind. It moves toward sin and away from God naturally. Only divine revelation can cure that.

So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” ~ John 20:25

Idola-Tribus Fallacy (Interpretation by Impressions)

Using one’s own interpretations of impressions that stand out from other impressions as a filter to interpret everything else

Examples:

• The student in school uses the lessons taught in class as a lens to understand all life.
• The person who regularly watches the news media uses the news media to understand what’s happening in the world.
• The person with a spiritual experience with Jesus Christ uses his or her own interpretations of that experience as a filter, thinking no other member of the body of Christ could add anything.

If-God-Exists Fallacy

Trying to project one’s own concept of God onto God Himself and to use this projection fallacy to try to disprove God’s existence

Example:

If God 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. It not only assumes a fallen human being knows what God would do, but it also assumes spiritual speculations. The human mind, without divine revelation can react to the five senses. If we try to go beyond the five senses, information is required. That information has to come from somewhere. The sources of information are the human mind making up stuff, demons/gods, or the Almighty Creator of all things. The Almighty Creator reveals the human mind is deceitful and desperately wicked as are evil spirits. He says He knows all things and cannot lie.

The only way the human mind can add information is by making up stuff, which we call “assuming.” The persuader using this fallacy makes assumptions about wisdom, knowledge, logic, fairness, justice, right, or wrong. However, the persuader can’t accurately evaluate these realities without divine revelation. This line of thinking also supposes the fallen human mind has the authority to judge God and has more wisdom and knowledge than God.

Persuaders who commit if-God-exists fallacies center on the pain and disappointment of life. This fallacy assumes God’s purpose is for us to have no trouble at all. Consider the following:

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world. ~ C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. ~ Romans 5:3-5 English Standard Version

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. ~ James 1:2-4 English Standard Version

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. ~ 1 Peter 4:12-19 English Standard Version

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ~ Romans 8:28-29 English Standard Version

Ignorance-of-Refutation Fallacy

Shoehorning the facts to fit a preferred conclusion

Example:

Since the big bang matches what we observe perfectly, we rightly reject special creation by God as it’s written in Scripture.

Except the big bang doesn’t match what we observe. It depends on telling stories about dark matter and dark energy. We don’t observe either of these. Both of these are finagle-factors. They’re workarounds to try to shoehorn the big bang into the observations.

All the facts, taken objectively, lead to a different conclusion perfectly. Irrationally, this persuader commits the ignorance-of-refutation fallacy by going to the preferred conclusion rather than the conclusion that fits the facts. Sometimes, persuaders make a mistake because of an idola-tribus fallacy. However, persuaders often use ignorance of refutation as a tactic for winning debates. They may want a certain political result or just hate a certain truth.

Ignoring-Differences Fallacy

(a.k.a. Denying Differences, Overlooking Differences, False Equivalence, Ignoring Differences, or Greyness Fallacy)

Overlooking, ignoring, or denying differences, resulting in faulty comparisons of various kinds

Example:

On CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye is overlooking the differences between made-up stuff and observation. The terms “historical science” and “observational science” aren’t important. There’s a difference between the observations and the stories that create a make-believe world beyond the observations. Rational thought requires a true premise and valid form. If we have a true premise and valid form, we don’t have any made-up stuff. What they call “historical science” relies heavily on either made-up stuff or divine revelation. However, Bill turned the discussion into an argument about definitions. When we argue about definitions, our arguments have no substance. Bill missed the substance. Made-up stuff isn’t the same as an observation. So with historical science, a Secular Humanist and a Christian are likely to come to different historical conclusions from the same observations.

Observational science depends on observation. Historical science goes beyond observation using either divine revelation or assumptions and stories: made-up stuff. So, Bill’s conclusion is there’s no difference between observation and made-up stuff. In this way, Bill commits the fallacy of ignoring differences.

The fallacy of ignoring differences can result in faulty analogy, equating opposites, or the package-deal fallacy.

Ignoring-Historical-Example Fallacy

Not applying the lessons God has given in the past to the present

Examples:

• People with personal agendas have stripped God out of secular textbooks, so you have to dig deeper to find out what really happened.
• The Hebrew people decided they needed to serve their idols rather than God, repeating the same mistake that got them into trouble at first. They did that by re-writing history to suit themselves.

Illicit-Contraposition Fallacy

Swapping and negating the subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition

Adultery is never agape love. Therefore, we always have agape love if we don’t commit adultery.

We could say sexual sin is never agape love. However, we can find many ways to be unloving without committing adultery.

Invalid Form Examples:

No X are Y. Therefore, no non-Y are non-X.

Some X are Y. Therefore, some non-Y are non-X.

Illicit-Major Fallacy

(a.k.a. Illicit Process of the Major)

Stating a premise by referring to only part of the class when the conclusion refers to the whole class

A major term that is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in the major premise of any categorical syllogism.

Examples:

All cats are animals. No dogs are cats. Therefore, no dogs are animals.

By this example, we can see that this logic is fallacious.

All evolutionists understand the Theory of Evolution. No creationists are evolutionists. Therefore, no creationists understand the Theory of Evolution.

Invalid Form of Illicit Major:

All X are Y. No Z are X. Therefore, no Z are Y.

Illicit-Minor Fallacy

(a.k.a. Illicit Process of the Minor)

In any form of categorical syllogism distributing the minor term in the conclusion, but not in the minor premise

Example:

All cats are animals. All cats are felines. Therefore, all animals are felines.

Invalid Forms of Illicit Minor:

All X are Y. All X are Z. Therefore, all Z are Y.

All X are Y. All X are Z. Therefore, all Y are Z.

Illicit-Observation Fallacy

Using two terms in a way that implies one negates the other when they don’t negate each other

Using two terms in a way that implies they’re opposites when they aren’t opposites

Example:

You believe what the Bible says about the Genesis Creation and Flood; therefore, you deny all science.

In this example, the persuader mentions two terms. One term is “what the Bible says about the Genesis Creation and Flood.” The other term is “all of science.” The persuader claims that to believe one amounts to denying the other. This persuader committed the illicit-observation fallacy since these two terms don’t negate each other. The Bible agrees with scientific observation, and scientific observation supports the Bible. The Bible conflicts with the opinions of some scientists, but those opinions are based on made-up stuff.

Illicit-Process Fallacy

Distributing a term in the conclusion of a categorical syllogism when the same term is undistributed in the premise

Illicit-process fallacies can be illicit process of the major or illicit process of the minor.

Invalid Form of Illicit Major:

S=subject, P=predicate, M=middle term

Major Premise: All S are P

Minor Premise: No M are S

Fallacy of Illicit Major: Therefore, no M are P

The minor term is the term that appears in the minor premise as the predicate. If it appears in the conclusion as the subject, it’s undistributed. If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M then it wouldn’t be a fallacy.

Example of Illicit Major:

All Christ-followers are human beings.

No person who is not following Christ is a Christ-follower.

Therefore, no person who is not following Christ is a human being.

Subject = Christ-followers, Predicate = human beings, Minor Term = person who is not following Christ

Correcting the Logic:

All Christ-followers are human beings.

No person who is not following Christ is a Christ-follower.

Therefore, no Christ-follower is not following Christ.

Invalid Form of Illicit Minor:

Major Premise: All S are P

Minor Premise: All P are M

Fallacy of Illicit Major: Therefore, all M are S

Examples of Illicit Minor:

All Catholics are Christian.

All Christians are supposed to follow Jesus.

Therefore, all who are supposed to follow Jesus are Catholic.

Subject = Catholics, Predicate = Christian, Minor Term = those supposed to follow Jesus

If we were to write the conclusion as, “Therefore, all S are M (Therefore, all Catholics are supposed to follow Jesus) then it wouldn’t be a fallacy.

Illicit-Substitution-of-Identicals Fallacy

(a.k.a. Leibniz’-Law Fallacy)

Claiming two things are identical when we don’t know they’re identical

Thinking two distinct things are the same thing

Two things are identical if and only if they’re the same thing. We often call the same thing a different name. You, for instance, are identical with yourself even if you have several names. In other words, all those names refer to you, so each name refers to the identical person: you.

Invalid Forms:

I know who X is. I don’t know who Y is. Therefore, X isn’t Y. [X and Y are the same person.]

I know what X is. I don’t know what Y is. Therefore, X isn’t Y. [X and Y are the same thing.]

X is Y. Z is Y. Therefore, X is Z. [X isn’t Z.]

Bill is 5’-11”. John is 5’-11”. Therefore, Bill is John.” [Bill isn’t John. They both are 5’-11”.]

Evidence is a way of knowing. Faith isn’t evidence. Therefore, faith isn’t a way of knowing. [Faith is evidence, and it’s the only certain evidence of anything.]

Example:

In the following example, Bill Nye claims his personal worldview is the same as observation, but it isn’t identical.

So, are we supposed to take your word for—English words translated over the last 30 centuries instead of what we can observe in the universe around us?

Bill’s worldview enchanted him to the point that it seemed like reality. Bill committed the illicit-substitution-of-identicals fallacy to imply the following untrue claims:

• we can observe the big bang and billions of years.
• we can observe non-life turning into life.
• we can observe amoebas turning into people.

Illicit substitution of identicals deceived Bill. Bill thinks he can see all that happening since the fallacy destroys the distinction between seeing and merely imagining. This fallacy made unreal concepts seem real. Observations filtered by a worldview aren’t identical to reality. They’re concepts and beliefs, which aren’t identical to reality itself.

Related:

intensional fallacy, intensional context, hooded-man fallacy, epistemic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, ontic fallacy, and confusing ontology and epistemology fallacy, defining terms too broadly, ignoring differences, equating opposites, and suppressing-the-correlative fallacies

Imaginary-Evidence Fallacy

Using fantasy as proof

Example:

On CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Ken Ham. . . . I’m looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it based on what I’m going to call science. Not historical science. Not observational science. Science! Things each of us can do akin to what we do; we’re trying to out-guess the characters on murder mystery shows, on crime scene investigation especially. ~ Bill Nye

Bill took an imaginary show and used it as evidence for his claim about real life. Using a fictional story as an illustration would have been fine, but he’s using it as proof of no difference between observation and arbitrary assumption.

With the imaginary-evidence fallacy, evidence for a conclusion rests on something known to be fantasy. Of course, the persuader who presents imaginary evidence won’t admit the evidence rests on fantasy and usually confuses imagination with reality. Because of the ungodly thinking problem, knowing the difference between reality and fantasy is impossible without divine revelation. Therefore, ungodly thinkers don’t have a way to know the difference between reality and fantasy, and so they frequently commit the imaginary-evidence fallacy.

Imagination-Based-Reasoning Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Imagination)

Using imagination as the proof for a proposition

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: What makes you think the Bible is God’s Word without error?

Rocky Rockbuilder: It seems like you’re asking for proof. I’m going to define “proof” as absolute proof and certainty with no circular reasoning or assumption-based interpretations. In this light, I have a way to know the Bible is God’s word or utterance. I have a way to know it’s without error. The way I know is I know Him through Christ. He leads, teaches, and corrects me moment by moment in every situation and teaches me the Bible is His word without error. He also speaks to me through the Bible. However, you don’t have to take my word for it since you can test it—whoever seeks Christ in sincerity, persistence, humility, and submission does find Christ. If you do that, finding and knowing Christ will be your proof. I invite you to know Him. On the other hand, instead of looking at this proof, you may want to argue against this proof. However, I expect that any proof you bring will be at this same standard, or you will explain how you are defining “proof.”

Sandy: OK. I absolutely know God doesn’t speak to you.

Rocky: I defined to you the exact process, without relying on assumptions or circular reasoning, by which I know the Bible is God’s word. In the same way, would you please define the exact process by which you think you know God doesn’t speak to me?

Sandy: Sure. God doesn’t exist, so He doesn’t speak.

Sandy Sandbuilder imagines God doesn’t exist, so Sandy uses his imagined concept to “prove” that God doesn’t speak. A dogmatically ungodly thinker may love to debate against God but finds it intimidating if we define the word “proof” to exclude all imagination-based reasoning. That’s because ungodly thinking is always imagination-based reasoning. And yet, the ungodly thinker continues to make bare claims and insist those claims are true because the ungodly thinker makes the claims.

Implied-Unsupported-Assertion Fallacy

(a.k.a. Implied Outright Lie)

Making a bare assertion by innuendo

Example:

Ken Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature. ~ Bill Nye

This short statement implies several bare assertions that Bill Nye wove into his messages throughout his 2014 debate with Ken Ham. Bill repeated the phrase, “Ken Ham and his followers,” in various forms throughout the debate. This way, Bill implied anyone who believes what God says through the Bible is part of a small band of renegades who are following Ken Ham. It also implies Ken Ham is a cult leader.

Bill crafted his innuendo subtly to create the impression without raising resistance. Bill combined this innuendo with other, more outrageous, lies. Many members of the audience accepted this lie without consciously evaluating it. Those biased against God were especially gullible. And if anyone calls Bill out on it, he can say they misunderstood him. That’s the beauty of innuendo since it’s a form of hedging.

The phrase, “this remarkable view” implies there’s a weirdness to believing there was a worldwide flood; however, the evidence of the Genesis Flood is difficult to miss in geology. The evidence of this Flood is overwhelming. Bill painted the paradigm of billions of years, no Flood, and sedimentary rocks forming over vast quantities of time. That paradigm is the “remarkable view.”

Again, Bill did it by innuendo rather than direct statement. You would be much more likely to catch the fallacy if Bill were to say, “It’s weird to think there was a flood.” The same would be true if Bill had said, “There’s no evidence of the Genesis Flood.”

Bill followed his innuendo with a straw-man fallacy in the phrase, “of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything we see in nature,” and that’s an outright lie stated presumptively. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of extension. He’s exaggerating to make the biblical account seem absurd.

You couldn’t tell it at this point in the debate since Bill cleverly planted the seeds of his arguments early in these vague terms. Later in the debate, he continued to build on the same idea until he finally (much later in the debate) said the Bible claims the Flood affected the stars.

That’s hyperbole. If Bill asserted it directly, few would accept it, but Bill made that claim by innuendo. Innuendo also allows a way out (hedge) if anyone calls Bill on the tactic. By using innuendo, it’s sometimes possible to tell a bold outright lie and later claim it was all a big misunderstanding when the lie is exposed.

Impossible-Conditions Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection or Demanding Impossible Evidence)

Demanding impossible evidence to believe or disbelieve something

The impossible-conditions fallacy takes the form of demanding irrational proof. Keep in mind that it’s not a fallacy to demand absolute proof. It’s a fallacy to demand irrational proof.

Example:

The only evidence that would make me believe in God would be if God spoke to me from heaven in an audible voice.

Atheists may say something like that. However, God doesn’t respond in submission to them since He’s already given them many irrefutable proofs of Himself. They know. They’re without excuse.

In this case, the atheist requests a certain form of evidence because history shows God rarely gives this form of evidence. But the atheist wouldn’t believe even with this form of evidence. God knows the atheist’s mind. In other words, if God spoke to the atheist, that wouldn’t turn the atheist to God. Atheists don’t disobey God because they lack evidence. They have a spiritual problem, not an intellectual problem.

‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’“ ~ Luke 16:31b Berean Study Bible

Another example is Bill Nye claiming he would change his mind about the story of evolution if someone found even a single fossil out of place. However, every time someone finds a fossil out of place, scientists move the goalposts by explaining away the evidence, hiding the evidence, or explaining away the criteria, so they never meet the ever-moving criteria.

The impossible-conditions fallacy is often an argument from ignorance that says, “Just convince me that my default position is wrong.” However, the deceiver always meets any evidence with new assumptions, made-up stories, or some method of ignoring the evidence, thus, creating an impossible condition.

Exception:

Science works by observation and repeated testing. I know gravity works because I can repeatedly test it and see that it works. I know the laws of kinetic energy work because I can repeatedly test those laws and observe the results. I know Jesus Christ exists and leads me because I can repeatedly experience Him leading and teaching me. I know the history in the Bible is correct because I can repeatedly ask God about it, and He always reassures me that this is His word without error.

I don’t commit the impossible-conditions fallacy if I need to test those before I believe they’re true. In the same way, I don’t commit the impossible-conditions fallacy if I don’t believe a story about millions of years of evolutionism without being able to watch the billions of years repeatedly. It’s impossible for anyone to observe the stories of millions of years of evolutionism. That means it’s impossible for anyone to know the stories are true. We can validate and verify God. We can’t validate or verify the stories of evolutionism.

In-a-Certain-Respect-and-Simply Fallacy

(a.k.a. Secundum Quid Et Simpliciter)

Assuming that an attribute of a smaller domain applies to a wider domain

Examples:

We can observe small changes happening between generations. Therefore, extending this observation over millions of years, small changes took place among one-celled organisms. They became small plants and animals. And these continued to change until we have all the various forms of living organisms observed today.

This persuader applied the changes of a small domain to a wide domain. The small domain was what we observe. The wide domain is the story of evolutionism. The persuader applied the changes that we observe to the story of evolutionism. However, the changes in the small domain aren’t like the changes the large domain would imply. The changes in the small domain couldn’t possibly lead to the story of evolutionism. What do we observe? We observe distorted, lost, and destroyed information. We also observe living organisms using information already in the organism to produce variation within kinds. We never observe new information systems forming. The story of evolutionism implies new information systems form naturally. However, most evolutionists ignore that implication because it reflects poorly on the sacred-cow story.

I saw a police officer who was unnecessarily aggressive on a video; therefore, there’s a lot of abuse among police officers.

Unfortunately, newscasters often edit the videos for political purposes to create unrest and hate. However, some bad police officers exist just as bad people exist in all professions. The problem is in applying a small domain to a wide domain.

I saw a young person who wouldn’t work; therefore, laziness is inherent in young people.

Most people will be lazy if they have an incentive to do so, and plenty of people of all types won’t work. On the other hand, many people of all ages work willingly and energetically.

I saw a Christian who was rude and ignorant; therefore, Christians are rude and ignorant.

Rude and ignorant people are everywhere. Among these rude and ignorant people, we find Christians, atheists, Jews, Hindus, and members of every other religion. However, Christians aren’t following Christ when they’re rude. And if they continue to follow Christ and listen as He teaches, they won’t be ignorant either.

Inability-to-Observe Fallacy

Using phantom proof based on what’s impossible to observe

Examples:

The persuader bases reason on what we can’t observe or experience.

We see no physical evidence the mind is anything other than the brain.

And that proves nothing. God reveals the mind isn’t the body, and the spirit isn’t the mind.

It makes sense to reject God since He hasn’t shown Himself to me in physical form.

God has other ways by which He reveals Himself to every person, so the persuader who made this statement is without excuse.

We observe evolution, but it takes such long periods no one lives long enough to observe it, and that’s how we know it happened.

The inability to observe the stories of evolutionism isn’t a sound reason for believing the stories or allowing phantom evidence for the stories of evolutionism.

Related:

argument-from-ignorance fallacy

Incomplete-Comparison Fallacy

Providing inadequate information to make a complete comparison, yet proposing a comparison

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m totally free as an atheist. I’m so glad I turned away from religion.

Sandy Sandbuilder is comparing freedom as an atheist to freedom in a religion, but what religion? What’s he free to do, and from what has he been set free?

Rocky Rockbuilder: I’m totally free since I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior.

What bound Rocky, and how did it bind him? How did freedom change his life? Rocky should say the Truth sets him free from sin and his sinful nature.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Evolution is more scientific.

More scientific than what?

Incongruent-Thinking Fallacy

Making two mutually exclusive claims and saying they’re both true in the same way and at the same time

Examples:

I’m a loser who has terrible thoughts, but I’m a good person.

I follow Christ, but I want to do what I want to do.

I believe the Bible from the very first verse to the very last verse. However, we can’t read certain problematic verses as they’re written.

Incongruent thinking is thinking that makes mutually exclusive claims, and the incongruency isn’t always obvious at first. Incongruent thinking isn’t just a logic issue. It’s a spiritual issue. The Holy Spirit comes into the lives of Christ-followers to purify the mind and purge out the lies. And when the lies go, the incongruent thinking goes with it. Of course, we aren’t purified in a moment instantly. Rather, we’re purified step-by-step. We mature over time. When God finishes His work in us, we won’t have any sinful nature but only Christ. God will have fashioned us into the image of Christ. We’ll fully yield to His will in everything. And yet, until God completes this work, we will all think incongruently sometimes.

Inconsistent-Comparison Fallacy

Using different methods of comparison, resulting in a false conclusion or a false sense that a conclusion is true when the conclusion is unknown

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: OK. Let’s compare faith to science. Science has facts and evidence. Faith is just belief with no evidence. Science is a method of exploring reality plus a body of knowledge.

Rocky Rockbuilder: It sounds like you may be comparing inconsistently. It sounds like you may be comparing the belief part of faith with the observation part of science but ignoring the make-believe part of science and the evidence part of faith.

Sandy: How so?

Rocky: You’re saying secular scientists believe in the body of knowledge. They make themselves believe in the body of knowledge, so that’s make-believe. You didn’t mention secular scientists base their thinking on unproven axioms that consist of made-up stuff. Three main axioms are naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. They take these axioms on make-believe faith. They make believe these axioms are true even though axioms have no truth value. On the other hand, God’s faith comes by hearing His utterance. Jesus Christ authors and finishes this faith, so it’s absolutely certain proof, and it’s reality as opposed to concept.

Sandy: Well science is stronger than faith.

Rocky: You’re basing your definition of “science” on make-believe faith, so it can’t be any stronger than making believe. The faith mentioned in the Bible comes when God speaks, and God speaking is the evidence. To a scientist who’s looking at the creation and acknowledging the Creator God, God speaks through the creation, and truth unfolds. When God speaks, He speaks truth, and faith comes as a free gift. Faith is a supernatural belief in what God said. God never twists the reality of observation when He speaks through the scientific method. He doesn’t speculate. When people add assumptions to what God is saying, they merely cloud the issue. God never twists the reality of the words He wrote through apostles and prophets. He’s absolutely honest and cannot lie. Faith is the only way we can know anything about anything. Even then we must be ready to allow the Holy Spirit to correct us as needed. We don’t know anything as we ought to know.

Ungodly thinkers would like to compare the belief aspect of following Christ to the observation aspect of the scientific method. They still want to have the body of knowledge but don’t realize scientists believe based on make-believe faith. Real faith has substance. Real faith is a gift from God that comes when God speaks. Make-believe faith comes when humans or demons make-up stuff.

Induction-for-Deduction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Using an Inductive Conclusion as a Premise in a Deductive Argument)

Using inductive reasoning to conclude and then using this conclusion as a premise for a deductive argument

Example:

Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. ~ Smithsonian, Human Evolution Evidence

If we have proof for something, we know it’s true. We have proof of molecules-to-humanity evolution. Therefore, we know molecules-to-humanity evolution is true.

The first paragraph consists of inductive reasoning. That amounts to an opinion. And the webpage goes on to further develop this opinion. However, it uses inductive and abductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning.

The second paragraph uses deductive reasoning derived from the inductive and abductive reasoning on the website. It says “We have proof of molecules-to-humanity evolution.” It’s referring to the inductive/abductive claims of the first part of the paragraph from the website. This premise is false because no proof of molecules-to-humanity evolution exists. All claims of evidence are referring to inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. And yet, this argument can seem rational and can fool millions of students.

When persuaders want to prove their desired conclusions, they need a premise. They need proof. They reason inductively to a conclusion. Then they call this conclusion “a premise.” They’re basing their premise on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning can never produce truth, so it can’t produce a true premise. Persuaders reason inductively to their premise. Then they use that premise in deductive reasoning to “prove” a desired conclusion. If they do that, they’ve committed the induction-for-deduction fallacy. The premise came from inductive reasoning. Therefore, it isn’t known and isn’t a true premise. They didn’t prove the premise. They may dogmatically believe the premise. However, they used induction to get the premise. Inductive reasoning can only lead to opinion. But deductive arguments require true premises or they’re not sound. Inductive reasoning also requires true premises to be sound. And yet, inductive reasoning never leads to truth or certainty.

Related:

generalizing-from-a-hypostatization fallacy

Inductive Fallacy

A fallacy of inductive reasoning

The term “inductive fallacy” is broad and would include all inductive fallacies.

Examples:

• Considering an inductive conclusion to be conclusive
• Using an inductive conclusion as a premise in a deductive argument
• Hasty generalization
• Unrepresentative sample
• False analogy
• Slothful induction
• Fallacy of exclusion

Inevitability Fallacy

(a.k.a. Retrospective Determinism or Path Dependency)

Using a claim of fate, necessity, or unpreventability as an excuse for bad behavior

Examples:

There was no choice in the matter since what happened had to happen.

Look, if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then it’s His fault if I sin.

Inference-from-a-Label Fallacy

Assuming labels attached to people, things, concepts, or organizations are accurate in defining them

Examples:

Come to beauty science. We will make you beautiful scientifically.

Persuaders have successfully used the label “science” to promote many scams and lies.

We’re going to a Christian concert tonight. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will be moving there.

Thinkers apply the label “Christian” to many things unrelated to Jesus Christ. We need discernment to recognize the spirit of the music. Sometimes events labeled “Christian” give us only emotion or worse. Happily, God’s Spirit does indeed move sometimes.

When we conclude based on the label, we commit a fallacy. Labels aren’t always accurate. We must see whether they’re absolutely proved. God names everything according to its essence. When God names something, that’s what it is. When humans name something, they may just be placing an ill-fitting label on it.

Infiltration-Tactic Fallacy

(a.k.a. Hostile Takeover)

Taking control of an organization by those opposed to the organization’s purpose

Example:

If you can’t beat them, join them and then beat them. ~ sign on the desk of an ungodly person

More Examples:

• Most, if not all, major universities were once Christian. Ungodly thinkers subverted them from within. They networked their way into power and then systematically eliminated those who follow Christ, especially those who follow Christ openly and closely.
• Both the YMCA and YWCA started as Christian organizations. Ungodly persuaders infiltrated them from within.
• During the Vietnam War, many young people wanted to avoid serving in the military, so they went to seminary even though they weren’t followers of Jesus Christ. Many of them got post-graduate degrees so they could continue to keep the government from drafting them into military service. When they graduated, they still didn’t know Jesus. They didn’t want to serve in a local church, so they went into religious administration. They found themselves making decisions about policy and doctrinal issues. They also went into teaching in the seminaries. In this way, they infiltrated and subverted the organizations they joined.
• A Christian patriotic movement began in the United States of America and started to slow the Nation’s progress toward globalism and godless socialism. Globalists promoted many ways that used a superficially convincing fog to subvert the movement with a similar but twisted message.
• The rumored “resistance movement” in the book Nineteen Eighty-four,” acted as a honey trap to stop any real resistance.

Infinite-Possibilities Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Infinite Possibilities)

Asserting that something is possible because nothing is impossible

Example:

We can’t rule anything out since anything is possible. It’s possible the creation created itself from nothing. Therefore it did. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

While it’s true that if nothing were impossible, then anything would be possible, persuaders commit this fallacy two ways. They assume anything is possible, but not everything is possible. They shift from possible to probable to certain by mental gymnastics. We have the entire cult of evolutionism as an example of this sneaky shift. Scientific arguments in favor of the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Flood-molecules-to-humanity story try to prove possibility rather than trying to prove the complex story happened. They claim if it’s possible, then it probably happened. From there, they teach it dogmatically as if it were the truth. Evolutionists and big bang storytellers can only appeal to infinite possibilities since the problems with their stories would discredit their stories if they thought rationally. They have a motivation for this lunacy since they need their stories to rationalize ungodliness.

The opposite of the infinite-possibilities fallacy is the fallacy of claiming impossibility, which is asserting a universal negative.

Infinite-Regress Fallacy

(a.k.a. Infinite Regression or Homunculus Argument)

An argument forming an endless string of dependent premises, so the logic proves nothing

Though the logic proves nothing, infinite regress appears to prove a conclusion. It gives the illusion. It’s deceptive. Infinite regression never reaches a true premise that can stand as true on its own, but rather, it’s a smokescreen to hide an unsupported claim. Infinite regress can happen in two different ways.

Most commonly, persuaders commit infinite regression by supporting one claim with a second claim, supporting the second claim with a third claim, and continuing with an unending series or unproven “proofs.” Rarely does anyone need to support claims beyond two or three challenges because the challengers lose their momentum.

Since no one can continue challenging claims forever, these persuaders deceive their audiences. Most people think they’ve grounded their claims because they answered the questions. However, they haven’t proved their answers. Instead, the challengers just gave up.

Persuaders can’t be rational without grounding their claims in something known. Only divine revelation solves infinite regression rationally by grounding the claim in divine revelation.

Persuaders also use a circular infinite regress. We call this form of circular regression the homunculus argument.

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Without divine revelation, we have no rational way to ground our thoughts in truth. Without a true premise, we can’t reason soundly.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I can see we need a true premise, but I disagree with what you say about not having a rational way to ground our thoughts in truth. We can ground our reasoning in the writings of the great minds who proceeded us.

Rocky: How do these great minds ground their reasoning?

Sandy: That’s simple. They establish their reasoning in the great minds that preceded them.

Rocky: And where do those great minds ground their reasoning.

Sandy: I can see where you’re going with your questions, but you lose. Great minds go all the way back.

One way infinite regression can work is through citations. Someone writes a book or a white paper that makes a claim. To support that claim, the writer cites another book by another author. The writer hasn’t proved anything. How does the writer know the claim in the second book is true? The author of the second book cites a third writer who makes the same claim in another work. However, we’re right back where we started because we must ask how the third writer knows. You can rest assured the third writer also cites a fourth writer who made the same claim. The fourth writer cites a fifth. And this goes on for infinity.

Here’s a classic homunculus argument:

Woman: Your theory that the sun is the center of the solar system, and the earth is a ball that rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory.

William James: And what is that, madam?

Woman: That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.

William James: If your theory is correct, madam, what does this turtle stand on?

Woman: You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question, but I have an answer to it. And it is this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, which stands directly under him.

William James: But what does this second turtle stand on?

Woman: It’s no use, Mr. James – it’s turtles all the way down.

wikipedia.org, Turtles all the way down

Inflation-of-Conflict Fallacy

Claiming incomplete knowledge means no one can know anything

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Unless you can describe exactly how God created the universe, you can’t know He created it.

Rocky Rockbuilder: God said He did create it, and you can read all the detail He gave in Genesis at the beginning of the Bible. If you acknowledge Him speaking to you as you read, He’ll reveal this information to you. If not, you aren’t going to get much out of it.

Sandy: That’s no good. You have to understand the physics of it, or else you can’t know.

Ungodly thinkers who commit the inflation-of-conflict fallacy usually focus the fallacy on a narrow issue. They apply it to whatever they don’t want to believe. An ungodly thinker who applied this fallacy universally couldn’t live. Ungodly thinkers can’t avoid building an arbitrary wall in their minds between God and all the ideas they like. They become dogmatic about ideas like big bang or evolutionism, but they inflate the conflict for spiritual truth because they don’t want the truth.

Everyone on the side of truth listens to me. ~ Jesus

Information-Overload Fallacy

Overloading the capacity of our human minds, and using the overload to deceive or brainwash us

Here are some ways persuaders overload our mind’s processing ability:

• speaking too quickly
• moving from subject to subject
• nesting fallacies
• introducing many new terms quickly
• linking many unrelated thoughts

When persuaders overload our minds, we start making mistakes and becoming confused. Sometimes persuaders use the confusion from information overload for brainwashing. Post-secondary education uses this method by overloading students. Students feel the overload. Teachers use this overload to manipulate students’ thinking.

Innuendo Fallacy

(a.k.a. Implication)

Suggesting that something is true (or false) without explicitly and clearly stating that it’s true (or false)

Innuendo is a fallacy only when it’s deceptive. Sometimes people use innuendo as a smokescreen fallacy. Persuaders can also potentially use it as a hedging mechanism. They can also use it for the Barnum-effect fallacy. P. T. Barnum noted that vague statements create wider acceptance than clear statements. And innuendo is vague. Innuendo implies a point without making a clear statement of the point. It allows interpretation. Persuaders use innuendo to get acceptance from people who would normally oppose the conclusion. That’s because each person thinks the speaker meant what he or she wanted to hear. Some persuaders use innuendo to make a sly suggestion.

Examples:

Vote for hope and change.

This mantra was wildly successful because each person imagined the hope and the change that he or she wanted. They never realized how bad the changes would be.

. . . you don’t want to raise a generation of science students who don’t understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space, who don’t understand natural law. We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world. ~ Bill Nye

In this example, Bill is using innuendo to imply knowing the difference between reality and make-believe would raise students who don’t know their place in the cosmos. Of course, the exact opposite is the case. In this little statement, Bill implies the stories of evolutionism are natural laws, but they aren’t. He implies returning to the God Who made America great would keep America from being great. Innuendo also creates a hedge, so Bill could deny he meant to imply these things.

How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago? ~ Bill Nye

Bill is implying these trees couldn’t be there if the Flood had occurred just over 4,000 years ago, but he doesn’t make the statement directly. He doesn’t state the various assumptions on which he bases his age estimates for the trees, but he falsely implies observations, not assumptions, prove the age of the trees. Bill bases his age estimates on assumptions, not observations, but he hides this fallacy with innuendo.

the story from the outside, from mainstream science. ~ Bill Nye debating Ken Ham at the Creation Museum

This innuendo implies several claims. Using the word “outside, Bill implied the Creation Museum isolates itself from the rest of science. Some people will interpret Bill’s innuendo to marginalize the scientists at the Creation Museum. Bill used the term “mainstream science” to imply a bandwagon fallacy and an appeal-to-tradition fallacy. However, he didn’t state any of these innuendos clearly since the audience wouldn’t buy these claims as clear statements.

Insignificant Fallacy

(a.k.a. Insignificant Cause or Genuine but Insignificant Cause)

Identifying the cause as something that’s a genuine cause but not the main cause

Examples:

Ron was promoted to supervisor because he has friends in high places.

Ron does have friends in high places, but Ron also works hard. He knows his job, and he understands the mission of the company, so he always decides how to solve problems with the goals of the company in mind. Ron also respects authority. He’s not a “yes” man, but when he does disagree, he does it in a way those who supervise him can respect and accept. That’s part of why Ron has friends in high places.

In the last thirty years, we have increased CO² by about one percent per year. We must stop man-made CO² emissions, or global warming will ruin the planet.

The earth began warming after the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s and has increased one-half degree centigrade in the last 100 years. We can’t tell whether that’s a cyclical increase following the Genesis Flood or a continuing trend. Over the last decade and a half, the warming has been close to zero. Over the last 150 years, scientists can’t correlate temperature and human-generated CO². They can’t find any firm data to prove man-made CO² is a factor at all. CO² comes from natural sources, but CO² may be an insignificant cause. Sunspots affect weather more than CO². Humans produce only a small fraction of the CO² natural processes produce.

Also, climate-gate reduces the credibility of those scientists and politicians who push the agenda. The agenda correlates with political goals and efforts to create a new world order. By that, we can’t prove the political goals motivate the climate change agenda, but it does raise the question.

Instantiation-of-the-Unsuccessful Fallacy

Blindly repeating what has not worked in the past

Examples:

• Pushing socialism as the cure for all problems when socialism has never worked anywhere.
• Shacking up before marriage to make sure the marriage will work.

People who shack up are so much more likely to divorce. Here’s why. They don’t know what marriage is. And they don’t understand the nature of love or commitment. If they use the same reasoning by which they rationalized shacking up, they can also rationalize unfaithfulness after they’re married.

God set up the marriage ordinance. It’s an order (ordinance) before God in which a man makes a life-long commitment to a woman to love her and give himself for her just as Christ did for the Church. A woman makes a life-long commitment to a man to respect him and submit her talents and ministry to his guidance as he’s learning how to allow Christ to guide him.

Sex is part of marriage, and God reserves it for marriage. Without a marriage commitment, sex consists of two people using each other. It’s the opposite of love. When people marry without knowing what marriage is, they miss the point and can never reach the fulfillment that God intended.

Intensional Fallacy

Confusing a worldview (the intensional context) with reality (the extensional context)

Thinkers who commit the intensional fallacy fail to deal with things like these:

• The deception of a worldview
• The deception of presuppositions
• The human inability to observe completely and accurately
• The human inability to self-generate knowledge
• The human inability to rationally interpret observation or experience
• The human dependence on making up stuff
• The human inability to discern between reality and make-believe

The only way out of this fallacy is divine revelation.

Related:

intensional context, hooded-man fallacy, illicit-substitution-of-identicals fallacy, epistemic fallacy, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology fallacy

Internal-Inconsistency Fallacy

Claiming that two or more contrary or contradictory statements are true at the same time and in the same way

Examples:

Here tonight, we’re gonna have two stories, and we can compare Mr. Ham’s story to a story from what I will call the story from the outside, from mainstream science. . . . the story from the outside, from mainstream science. . . . This is what geologists on the outside do. . . . Now out there in regular academic pursuits, regular geology . . . if as asserted here at this facility . . . Ken Ham’s Creation model . . . There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham, and that’s the problem for me. You want us [the entire population of the world other than Ken Ham?] to take your word for what’s written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. . . . science, I mean in the mainstream. ~ Bill Nye

Bill’s first statement expresses his problem with biblical history and scientists who interpret observation through that lens. He’s closed-minded toward that way of thinking.

Now, look at the following statement where Bill claims to be open-minded. The two statements conflict. Bill must be either open-minded or closed-minded, but his first statement is closed-minded, and his second statement is open-minded.

If a scientist, if anybody makes a discovery that changes the way people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her. This person is fantastic, Louis Pasteur, in reference to germs. No, if you find something that changes or disagrees with the common thought, that’s the greatest thing going in science. We look forward to that change . . . ~ Bill Nye

Here we have two inconsistent statements by Bill Nye. In the first paragraph, Bill is using the logical fallacy of bandwagon with a twist of marginalization. The term, “mainstream science,” implies there’s a mainstream group. It implies anyone who disagrees with what those folks say is wrong and should just fall in line with the old ideas. Bill was talking about censoring disagreement within the scientific community. He wants to censor any scientists who don’t agree with the big bang story or the molecules-to-humanity evolutionism story. In conflict with this first claim, Bill also claims his science is open to new ideas. That’s the second paragraph. Bill made these two conflicting claims in the same debate. He irrationally maintained both mutually exclusive views throughout the debate, which is the logical fallacy of internal inconsistency.

Intimidation Fallacy

Any of the many forms of intimidation tactics used in place of sound reasoning

Examples:

Philip Bishop is a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama. He has over 300 publications in refereed journals and conference publications and was recommended for early tenure. When the University learned that he informed his students that his field provides abundant evidence for intelligent design, they forbade him from doing so. On the other hand, William Provine of Cornell boasts that the percentage of theists among his students drops from 75% at the beginning of the course to 50% at the end. ~ Slaughter of the Dissidents

Persuaders and manipulators use intimidation because it works.

Sandy Sandbuilder: As a Ph.D. Physicist, I am here representing my credentialed colleagues from every scientific discipline. We have provided the information on laterally transferred elements and high-pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strains and genome comparison of a nonpathogenic myxoma virus field strain with its ancestor, the virulent Lausanne strain, clearly demonstrating that information is indeed added to the genome due to mutations.

Rocky Rockbuilder: May I ask two questions? Did you know your first point doesn’t prove mutations created new information in the genome? Did you consider your second point proves precisely the opposite of what evolutionists wish to prove?

Sandy: Get yourself some credentials before you contradict someone like me.

Loaded with jargon, degrees, and numbers, Sandy fails to provide any evidence that supports his point. Why is intimidation as proof a fallacy? Intimidation can’t prove anything is true. It can’t prove anything is false.

Invalid-Form-using-“Or” Fallacy

(a.k.a. Confusing Inclusive “Or” with Exclusive “Or”)

Failure to make the correct distinction between inclusive “or” and exclusive “or”

In the fallacy of invalid form using “or,” a persuader changes the meaning of the word “or” during reasoning. The persuader may change “or” from exclusive to inclusive. Alternately, the persuader might change “or” from inclusive to exclusive.

Invincible-Ignorance Fallacy

Ignoring real proof and real rational thought

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: You don’t have to take my word for it. You can know Christ. He’s real, a person, not a theology, feeling, religion, or any such thing. All you need to do is pray to Him in sincerity, respect, and submission with a will to do His will, and He’ll reveal Himself to you. Then you’ll know.

Sandy Sandbuilder: You need to prove God exists. I want to see physical evidence using repeatable experiments that I can do to verify your theory about a god.

Sandy Sandbuilder isn’t willing to look at the evidence, so he’s committing the fallacy of invincible ignorance. Rocky offered Sandy a chance to verify the reality of Christ. However, Sandy has closed his mind. He claims God’s actual presence is a mere theory, and he uses presumption to support his claim.

Invincible-Authority Fallacy

(a.k.a. Appeal to Invincible Authority)

Claiming that no one can question a natural or human authority

Claiming that no one can challenge a conclusion or theory drawn from human authority

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: The scientists [no-true-scientist fallacy by innuendo] agree that evolution [the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story] is a scientific fact.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Have you personally examined the evidence?

Sandy: I have no access to it. Besides, the evidence is vast. No one person could personally examine it all, and it requires expertise that I don’t have, but I trust the scientists.

Rocky: So you base your belief on a form of rationalized faith and trust in these particular scientists?

Persuaders in government-run schools use invincible authority to teach students to be dogmatic about ungodly ideas. TV programming builds ungodly worldviews in the same students. Museums and parks reinforce these ungodly ideas. No one gets to check all the actual evidence. The persuaders hide presuppositions, assumptions, and methods of flimflam from students. Fooling students is easy.

Sandy Sandbuilder: There’s no God.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What makes you think so?

Sandy: My professor at school says so.

Rocky: What if your professor is wrong.

Many students look at professors as invincible, all-knowing, trustworthy gods. When you have many professors in a phony consensus, it’s even easier to put them on this pedestal.

A persuader falsely claims no one can question a questionable source of information. However, only God is above question. All others must prove their statements. If God reveals something, He is the Invincible Authority, so believing Him doesn’t commit a fallacy.

The invincible-authority fallacy often takes a form similar this statement: “I think I’ll trust the mainline experts on this issue.” Those “experts” can be theologians, scientists, or philosophers. The “experts” can be whatever we want to assign as the invincible authority if we want to live in a make-believe world.

Ion Fallacy

(a.k.a. Regression Fallacy)

Claiming a false cause for an observation when natural fluctuations are the actual cause

Example:

A persuader dogmatically claims human activity causes global warming.

However, global weather fluctuations are a natural phenomenon. Strong inductive evidence suggests the Genesis Flood left effects that cause the fluctuations. No certain proof suggests that human activity causes global warming.

The persuader claims human activity causes global warming. That claim commits the ion fallacy since it’s a false cause. Climate alarmists have changed the term “global warming” to “climate change.” They’re adapting to the problem of lack of evidence for global warming. Climate change is an unfalsifiable claim since climate alarmists can call any fluctuation in the weather “climate change.”

Related:

post-hoc fallacy

Irrelevance-Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Relevance)

Diverting attention away from the issue by bringing up something not related to the issue

Persuaders commit fallacies of relevance by appealing to authority, emotion, or pressure. However, they can also distract in other ways like attacking the source or changing the subject.

Irrelevant-Conclusion Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ignoratio Elenchi)

Claiming to prove the point at issue by proving an irrelevant point

Examples:

We have proved evolution [molecules to humanity] since we can observe changes from one generation to another.

The changes we observe don’t add new coded information systems to the cell. However, the story of evolution is a story of adding new coded information systems to cells. Even if this problem of coded information systems weren’t an issue, no one proved the historical stories of evolutionism happened. We would have to observe them to prove them. Since we can’t repeatedly observe the stories happening over millions of years, we can’t prove the story scientifically. Science requires repeated observation rather than stories.

The earth is 4.7 billion years old, and we prove that with radiometric dating.

This persuader hid her fallacy in several layers of deception. However, if you can dig through those layers, you find scientists made observations and calculations, but scientists base their conclusion on assumptions. They don’t base their conclusions on observation or sound deductive reasoning.

Irrelevant-Evidence Fallacy

Trying to prove the conclusion with irrelevant “evidence”

Examples of irrelevant evidence:

• needling
• emotion
• personal attacks
• true statements that don’t prove the conclusion

Even relevant evidence isn’t necessarily the same as relevant proof. It depends how we define “evidence.” Proof is absolute. But we might define “evidence” as interpretations of observations. We might define “evidence” as the observations without any interpretation or storytelling. We might define “evidence” as the absolutely certain proof that only comes when God speaks.

Irrelevant-Purpose Fallacy

Assuming something is not true or not important because it hasn’t fulfilled its supposed purpose, but the supposed purpose was never the real purpose.

Example:

I don’t believe in Christ because His followers aren’t doing what I would expect.

God fulfills His promises incrementally. Much of His creation isn’t fully completing the purpose for which He created it. However, God will have a group of people who will fulfill His purpose, and He’s continually working toward that purpose.

In an immature state, something can be real but not yet useful for its eventual purpose. We can see that principle by watching teams of workers construct a building. We see that principle in babies who aren’t able to do any useful work but yet have enormous value. We see it in the church.

Irrelevant-Question Fallacy

Asking a question that changes the subject, switches the focus, or misdirects the discussion to an irrelevant issue

Example:

How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years? ~ Bill Nye

Bill asked an irrelevant question since the Genesis Flood didn’t deposit the layers during the 4,000 years following the Flood. The Genesis Flood deposited them during the Flood. Bill implied there’s not enough time after the Flood. That’s a red herring since the most rational explanation for the deposits is the Genesis Flood laid them down. We observe overwhelming evidence of the Genesis Flood. However, the proof of the Genesis Flood is absolute by divine revelation.

Related:

red-herring fallacy

Irrelevant-Thesis Fallacy

Premises that don’t prove the conclusion

A persuader may present true or false premises. However, if the premises don’t prove the conclusion, whether they’re true or false just distracts us. True premises that don’t prove the conclusion deceive us more effectively than false premises.

Example:

An article mentioned some girls who beat another girl to death in a public restroom. The persuader who wrote the article used this beating as a premise to prove we should allow men in women’s restrooms. While it’s true the beating happened, and the girl who was beaten died, neither of these facts have anything to do with men using women’s restrooms. The thesis is irrelevant.

Isolated-Examples Fallacy

(a.k.a. Unrepresentative Sample)

Using non-typical or non-representative examples to ‘prove’ a general claim

Examples:

• Cherry-picking data to date rocks and fossils.
• Fighting any disclosure of evolution’s problems when indoctrinating students in evolution.
• Using the behavior of one person who claims to be Christian as an indictment of Jesus Christ.

A persuader using this fallacy gives some facts but leaves out pertinent facts that would change the conclusion if he were to disclose them.

Related:

hasty-generalization fallacy

Is-Ought Fallacy

(a.k.a. Arguing from Is to Ought, Is-Should Fallacy, Hume’s Law, or Hume’s Guillotine)

Making statements about what ought to be or what’s right without giving a sound reason based on absolute truth

Examples:

No one can say anything is wrong other than murder and rape.

On what basis, then, are murder and rape wrong? How can we say something is wrong and something else isn’t wrong unless God decides it? However, God does say these things are wrong, and He says many other things are wrong, and He says failure to do the things He commands is also wrong. For instance, He says we are to love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind, and not doing so is the primary sin. As it works out, if we don’t love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind, we disconnect from reality.

It’s wrong to say homosexuality is a sin since homosexual marriage is now the law of the land.

We have no way to reason from statements that describe to statements that prescribe. In other words, an ungodly thinker can’t reason from “this is what is” to “that is what ought to be.” And although ungodly thinkers love to talk about right and wrong, ungodly thinkers can’t rationally determine right from wrong. They can’t rationally talk about better, worse, good, bad, or any such things. They have opinions, but that’s all they have.

On the surface, that can seem like a conflict. Ungodly thinkers can’t reason to the answer for any ethical or moral question. God reveals right and wrong to ungodly thinkers, but ungodly thinkers won’t acknowledge Him. They know, but here’s why they can’t think rationally. Though God reveals right and wrong to them, they fail to acknowledge Him as God. As a result, they don’t know the difference between what God reveals and what they make up. They know, but they’re in denial and confusion. In that state, they defend wrong with the same enthusiasm as they defend right since they don’t know the difference between the two, but they think they know.

Persuaders often hide these fallacies in premises, basing premises on is-ought fallacies. However, the persuader never details the is-ought reasoning. Instead, the persuader just states the premise as if it were fact, which makes it more difficult to spot is-ought fallacies.

Related:

naturalistic fallacy

It-Could-Be-Better Fallacy

Thinking something could have been better rather than thanking God

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: If God existed, He certainly should have designed the human body better.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Let me see your working model of your design, and we’ll make a comparison. By the way, you have to create your atoms from nothing.

When we commit the it-could-be-better fallacy, we lose thankfulness. Without thankfulness, true happiness is impossible. Thankfulness also brings mental healing and health. For instance, instead of giving the honor due to some person, the ungodly thinker responds with nitpicking. This fallacy is also a way to avoid thanking God, and without thankfulness to God, true, lasting, and stable happiness is elusive.

Related:

relative-privation fallacy

It-Could-Be-Worse Fallacy

Suggesting it could be worse instead of solving the problem or admitting wrongdoing

Example:

1960s Parent: Why are you teaching my child that he should experiment with sex?

1960s Teacher: At least I didn’t teach your child he should experiment with homosexuality.

Related:

relative-privation fallacy

Jingoism Fallacy

Believing something because not believing it would be unpatriotic

Example:

If you don’t believe in universal healthcare, you aren’t patriotic. It is, after all, the law of the land.

If you don’t support abortion, you aren’t patriotic. The Supreme Court has ruled that it’s legal.

If you don’t endorse homosexual marriage, you aren’t patriotic.

Those who don’t want a totalitarian socialist government are anti-American.

For these examples, we would need a better reason to believe. Patriotism isn’t a reason.

British secularist George Holyoake (1817-1906) coined the term, “Jingoism as a political label against those who favor a foreign policy that protects the rights of a nation. More recently, the globalist press has used this term to smear non-globalists. These persuaders accuse non-globalists of saying we should believe certain things because not believing them would be unpatriotic. If non-globalists held this position, they would commit the jingoism fallacy. However, the persuaders who accuse others of “jingoism” are often trying to control the message by falsely accusing.

Joint-Effect Fallacy

(a.k.a. Common Cause or Confounding Factor)

Thinking one thing causes another when a third thing causes both

Example:

There’s a question that troubles us all from the time that we are absolutely the youngest and first able to think, and that is, “Where did we come from?” “Where did I come from?” And this question is so compelling that we’ve invented the science of astronomy. We’ve invented life science. We’ve invented physics. We’ve discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. ~ Bill Nye

Bill implies curiosity causes science. However, God causes both science and healthy scientific curiosity since God gave the desire to know Him and to know about His creation. God revealed how to do science. Since God says every person knows about His existence, it takes effort for a person to suppress the truth of God’s existence and His laws since God has revealed these things to every person. Some people suppress this truth in their deceitful trickery.

Because of reduced consumer spending, unemployment has increased.

Government-induced burdens cause both the current reduced consumer spending and unemployment. Reduced consumer spending would cause an increase in unemployment, but irrational government regulation and taxation of businesses also cause unemployment to increase, and that causes reduced consumer spending. As the nation’s deficit increases and reporters write news stories about the possibility of a recession, consumers and business people become more cautious. This caution results in both reduced consumer spending and increased unemployment.

I have above average intelligence and energy. This is why I’m doing quite well financially.

God gave the intelligence and the energy. God also gave both the health and the financial prosperity. Many people are intelligent and hard-working but not well-off financially.

Poverty causes crime.

Ungodliness of the population causes both crime and poverty. It also causes every other problem on earth. Ungodly attitudes, social programs, laws, and government all work to increase both crime and poverty.

Judgmental Fallacy

Judging others by accusing them of judging

Using “judgmental” as an epithet

Example:

You shouldn’t judge me for having any sex I want to have.

You’re so judgmental. You think I’m wrong. The Bible says, “Judge not, or you will be judged.”

Why it’s a fallacy:

• The person accusing others of judging is judging and accusing.
• The person accusing is usually doing things God defines as wrong. When they accuse others of judging, they’re often projecting to cover up their own wrongdoing.
• A person who is sinning feels convicted in the presence of the Holy Spirit. They accuse those in whom the Spirit lives to cope with their own reactions to the Holy Spirit.
• The accuser who’s calling others “judgmental” may simultaneously judge others for violating political correctness, but political correctness commits the fallacy of moralism. Political correctness consists of several human-invented rules that have no merit with God.
• Those who commit the fallacy commonly use the following Scripture: “Judge not, and you will not be judged.” However, they take this Scripture out of context since this Scripture explains how to judge correctly. While Scripture is clear that we aren’t given authority to judge the person or to gossip about others, God gives us the responsibility to judge the difference between right and wrong. Also, where God gives authority, we’re always responsible for judging God explains this through several passages of Scripture, and anyone familiar with Scripture knows it.

The judgmental fallacy confuses two things. It makes no distinction between judging the spiritual condition of another person and knowing the difference between good and evil. As we mature in Christ, the flesh dies away, and the Christ within becomes more fully formed in us. As a result, we can tell the difference between good and evil. We can better know the difference between what comes from human minds and what comes from the Holy Spirit. And we can know the difference between those acts God hates and those acts God loves. We no longer lack judgment. That’s different from judging another Christian as being “immature,” “headed for hell,” or “judgmental.”

Out of love and compassion, we tell an unsaved person that he or she has sinned and therefore needs the forgiveness and redemption only available through Christ. We aren’t saying they need forgiveness and redemption any more than we need forgiveness and redemption. We aren’t judging them as less than ourselves. We aren’t claiming to know the final status of the unsaved person. Who knows? This unsaved person may turn to Christ like the apostle Paul did, turn from sin, repent, and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Just-In-Case Fallacy

(a.k.a. Worst-Case-Scenario Fallacy)

Using the worst-case scenario rather than the most likely scenario in making an argument

Example:

There hasn’t been significant global warming lately, and history shows climate fluctuation going way back in time. However, there still might be a chance the planet is going to self-destruct, so we need a global dictatorship just in case.

The persuader who commits the just-in-case fallacy oversimplifies the complex art of risk assessment and risk management and doesn’t look at the situation realistically. Persuaders often get an agreement by raising the specter of the worst-case scenario. They pretend the worst case is certain or nearly certain even though the worst-case scenario is a story based on assumptions. Sometimes, those assumptions are outlandish. No one is ever reasonable when they reason based on assumptions. However, in the just-in-case fallacy, persuaders select assumptions that make the worst-case scenario seem imminent rather than far-fetched. ^{(Overton Window)}

Just-World-Hypothesis Fallacy

Believing the world is just and what happens is fair according to one’s own definition of “just” and “fair”

Example:

Jim must not be walking right. God is judging him. See! He lost his job.

God allows problems to come into our lives for many other reasons. One is to test us and prepare us for future responsibility.

Why would God allow injustice?

We may not always understand God’s purposes, but He has a different viewpoint than we have. He can see across the ages, the end from the beginning. He knows everything that’s going on and what it’s going to take to finish the project.

When thinkers get confused by the just world fallacy, they generalize from a small sample of the eternal continuum. However, God will ultimately judge justly in everything. Fortunately for those who receive Christ, God is both faithful and just to pardon sin and remove the sinful nature from all the people who confess their faults to Him.

Knights-and-Knaves Fallacy

Painting some people as consistently truthful and others as consistently untruthful when that’s not the case

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: If you want proof, just read (such and such article) in the Journal of Creation.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m not reading that trash. All they do is lie. I only read the Secular Humanist scientific journals.

Now, let’s look at the other side of it.

Sandy Sandbuilder: If you want proof, just read (such and such article) in the Secular Humanist scientific journals.

Rocky Rockbuilder: I’m not reading that trash. All they do is lie. I only read articles in the Journal of Creation.

No Christian should fear reading the Secularistic Humanist scientific journals. Creation-Evolution website http://www.crev.info reviews these journals, and we can learn a lot about rational thinking from this site. We just need to be aware that those who write the articles want the editors to publish their papers. They know the editors don’t publish anything that violates any sacred cows of the elite. The unifying sacred cow of the Secular Humanist scientific journals is naturalism, which is ungodliness. Right behind naturalism is evolutionism. So, the articles are going to slant toward ungodliness and evolutionism.

As we read, listen to, or watch anything, we need to do it in the presence of the Holy Spirit and allow the Holy Spirit to discern what’s real from what’s make-believe. In the process, the Holy Spirit will tear down our strongholds and correct us regarding the hardened errors in our minds. He will expose every lie and confirm every truth.

Persuaders who commit the knights-and-knaves fallacy often nest it in with other fallacies. They may also commit an appeal-to-authority fallacy. They may commit an ad-hominem fallacy or a genetic fallacy. The persuader demands others just trust, without question, the always-correct knight and disregard the always-incorrect knaves. In these cases, the persuader reasons in a circle, disqualifying those who disagree with the favored conclusion as liars because they disagree. Then everyone, except those nasty liars, agrees with the persuader’s conclusion.

For instance, evolutionists glorify scientists who believe in the stories of evolutionism and denigrate scientists who don’t believe the stories. Politicians honor those on their side and try to destroy those who aren’t. Climate alarmists believe alarmist scientists but call non-alarmists “liars.” Theologians love those who believe their theologies but consider those who don’t believe their theologies uninformed, uneducated, stupid, or evil.

Exception:

Sometimes, we need to notice differences between groups. God tells us to reject ungodly counselors. When someone wants to lead us, but they reason without Christ’s revelation, we must reject their counsel. They may have information, but we must check their claims closely. We test the spirits. We aren’t conformed to the world but transfigured as the utterance of Christ renews our minds. We must know the difference between what they observe and what they imagine. Often, students must learn the class material without making the mistake of believing lies are true. Many Scriptures warn of bad company, false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles. Here are a few:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. ~ Psalm 1:1-6 English Standard Version

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. ~ 1 John 4:1 English Standard Version

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; ~ Ephesians 4:14 English Standard Version

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. ~ 2 Peter 2:1-3 English Standard Version

Some persuaders use the knights-and-knaves fallacy as a phantom fallacy to hide a situation where some people consistently get it wrong while we can trust others. Post-modernists, for instance, believe no lies or truth exist. They believe only winners and losers exist. They justify lies but feel the only downside of lying is if someone exposes them as liars. Pointing out this reality isn’t a fallacy.

Lack-of-Imagination Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument by Lack of Imagination or Argument by Lack of Knowledge)

Using inability to find alternatives as proof no alternatives exist

Examples:

Evolution is scientifically impossible.

We can’t find a way the molecules-to-humanity story could have happened within what we currently understand about science, but this statement isn’t a good argument. We have a better argument against it. This one is weak but true. Someone could say, “Use your imagination.” The human mind can think up a story to “solve” every evolution problem. Imagination can make anything seem true no matter how ridiculous it is. Anything!

We could point out there’s no real evidence for evolution. We could say evolution is scientifically impossible. Those statements are true, but the evolutionists can just say imagination solves the problem.

God reveals an iron-clad argument against evolution. Divine revelation is the only sure way we can know anything about the distant past. God says He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days. He created humanity and all the kinds of animals then. And we know it by revelation. Therefore, molecules-to-humanity evolution didn’t happen.

There’s no way distant starlight could get to earth on day six of Creation since God created the stars on day four according to Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is wrong, or else you shouldn’t read it as it’s written.

This persuader argues by lack of imagination. She’s claiming God couldn’t have possibly gotten the starlight to earth by any natural or supernatural means. What would stop Him? We don’t have to imagine a way He could do it. We just have to know whatever God says is a fact and is beyond dispute.

To be clear, God doesn’t ask us to use our imaginations to solve these ad ignorantiam questions. He asks us to believe Him. If He chooses to show us how He got the distant starlight to the earth, we’ll receive the revelation. Our imaginations can’t do it.

The persuader using an argument by lack of imagination claims to examine all possibilities, yet we don’t know all the possibilities. We can know certain things by revelation from the all-knowing God. The persuader who commits the lack-of-imagination fallacy claims omniscience.

If I can’t think of another answer suitable to myself, then my answer is true.

Of course, this example is stated plainly to make it obvious, but persuaders rarely state fallacies in a way that makes them obvious.

. . . the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction, and the prediction is extraordinary and subtle, but there it is. How else would you explain it? ~ Bill Nye

So, even though the speculative explanation is “extraordinary” and “subtle,” we should just accept it since Bill couldn’t imagine another explanation. Bill couldn’t imagine another explanation even though Ken Ham had just given him God’s explanation. Bill’s explanation has effects without causes, but God’s explanation doesn’t have effects without causes. God explains that He created the heavens, earth, seas, and everything in them in six days. And, by the way, Bill falsely claimed the story of molecules-to-humanity predicted that scientists would find Tiktaalik when the story didn’t predict it.

Some persuaders argue from lack of imagination. Others argue from imagination, the counterpart in which there’s always the possibility of imagining another story, another ad hoc rescuing hypothesis. Bill built his case for the stories of evolutionism on an argument by imagination. He then supported his case with an argument from lack of imagination. Evolutionism depends on imagination. That’s because only divine revelation can end the dependency on imaginary made-up stories.

Related:

argument from ignorance

Law-of-Cause-and-Effect Fallacy

A violation of the Law of Cause and Effect

The Law-of-Cause-and-Effect fallacy violates a basic law of logic. The Law of Cause and Effect says a definite cause exists for every effect and a definite effect for every cause. Within the created world, every effect must have a cause, and everything happens for a reason.

Examples:

• The regularity of nature must have a cause
• The laws of logic must have a source
• The universe must have a cause
• The existence of matter must have a cause
• Information must have a cause.

The stories of evolutionism commit the Law-of-Cause-and-Effect fallacy since they provide no cause for any of these. Interestingly, evolutionists often mock creationists because creationists have a cause since God created everything. At the same time, they demand a cause for God, but since God is eternal, uncaused, and uncreated, He doesn’t need a cause, and nothing limits Him.

Least-Plausible-Hypothesis Fallacy

Choosing a hypothesis that conflicts with known facts while rejecting a hypothesis that doesn’t conflict with known facts

Choosing a hypothesis that depends on more assumptions while rejecting one that depends on fewer assumptions

Example:

The Creation-Flood model uses fewer assumptions and conflicts with fewer known facts than the big-bang-billons-of-years-molecules-to-humans model. Despite this fact, some scientists reject the Creation-Flood model and choose the big-bang-billons-of-years-molecules-to-humans model.

Lexical-Ambiguity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ambiguous Terms)

Giving a word or phrase more than one definition in the same argument

Not specifying the definition of words or phrases that have two or more possible meanings

Examples:

Science shows us evolution is a fact.

The word, “science,” and the word, “evolution,” are ambiguous. Some people define “science” as a way of exploring through observation and experimentation. Others define “science” as a way of knowing by interpreting observation and experimentation. They define “interpretation” as making up stories based on assumptions. Other people define “science” as the opinion of most scientists or the opinion of the minority of scientists who hold more political clout.

Some people define “evolution” as the observable changes happening from generation to generation in all living organisms. Some people define “evolution” as a story about life morphing over millions of years, a story that no one has ever observed.

To confuse people, persuaders define the word “evolution” as “change over time.” That way, they can trick students. They call these unobserved stories “change over time.” Then, they also call what we observe “change over time.” That confuses people because change over time is now two very different things.

“Evolution” is unobserved stories, and it’s also observations. That blurs the difference between make-believe and reality. We hear a story about one, but we see the other. We see mutations. We see epigenetic variations. However, they don’t prove the story. Nor do other observations prove the unobserved story.

We can’t see ape-like creatures gradually changing into humans. We can’t see dinosaurs gradually changing into birds. We can’t see a simple life-form morph into every form of life observed today. Despite this lack of observation, persuaders play games with words to confuse people between what we can observe and what no one has ever observed.

We atheists look at the evidence.

The word, “evidence,” can mean actual observations, but in college-level classes, “evidence” can be opinions and interpretations based on assumptions. Assumptions have no truth value. An atheist bases every thought on what someone interpreted by assumptions and stories. That’s the ungodly-thinking fallacy. Persuaders often use the term “evidence” as if it were proof, but if we look at what they’re calling “evidence,” we find it isn’t proof. Proof is absolute, but what they call “evidence” is vague and unsettled.

Lie-Within-the-Lie Fallacy

The underlying lie that’s the goal of all the other lies and fallacies

A persuader uses many lies and fallacies to facilitate the lie the persuader really wants to tell. The lie the persuader cares about is the lie within the lie.

Examples:

• You should not serve God.
• God cannot be known.
• The Bible is unreliable.
• Nothing bad will happen if you sin.

These are four important lies. Persuaders tell thousands, perhaps millions, of other lies to promote these four lies. The big bang story, the molecules-to-humanity story, and the no-Genesis-Flood story are lies to promote these four lies. Naturalism, relativism, and materialism are lies to promote these four lies. Then persuaders use thousands of other lies to promote the big bang story, the molecules-to-humanity story, the no-Genesis-Flood story, naturalism, materialism, and relativism.

Limited-Depth Fallacy

(a.k.a. Effect Without a Cause)

Making a claim but failing to explain the underlying causes for what’s claimed

Examples:

I don’t go out drinking because I’m a Christian.

This Christian appeals to a class of people rather than appealing to his underlying causes or motivations. How about, “I’m a follower of Christ, and Christ never leads me to go out drinking.” There’s nothing in the Bible that commands Christians not to drink. Different callings exist. “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:” ^{(Proverbs 31:4)}

I believe in evolution because it’s a fact of science.

While evolutionists propose mechanisms as possible causes for the molecules-to-humanity story, every proposed mechanism falls short. This lack of a rational cause for the molecules-to-humanity story doesn’t prove the molecules-to-humanity story false. It does make it irrational to claim science proves evolution since science requires a cause. Divine revelation proves the molecules-to-humanity story is false.

If we dream up a story that A causes B, we need to explain how A causes B. Otherwise, we haven’t yet developed a hypothesis. Now, if we speculate, we’re just telling a story, and our story doesn’t carry weight. Other explanations describe actual observations without speculating beyond the observations. Those explanations carry weight if they don’t add any imagined information to the observations. Naturalistic explainers can’t rationally go beyond what they can observe. They do irrationally go beyond what they observe. They can’t base their explanations on any assumptions without thinking irrationally.

They’re also irrational to arbitrarily exclude any spiritual explanations. Causes can be spiritual. The claim that causes can’t be spiritual is irrational. No one can support that claim with a true premise and valid form. We know that universal negative by divine revelation.

When God reveals history or some part of reality, He doesn’t always explain how or why. He asks us to trust Him. He doesn’t commit a fallacy by telling us to trust Him. We don’t commit a fallacy by trusting Him.

However, those who make up stories commit the limited-depth fallacy if they dogmatically state that something happened a certain way without a cause or mechanism. However, they may hide the missing cause. They may not mention the cause, hoping no one asks. Alternately, they may simply assert a cause without proof. They base their claim about the cause on the axiomatic-thinking fallacy.

Related:

Law of Cause and Effect

Limited-Scope Fallacy

Making a claim that doesn’t explain everything that we observe

Examples:

• Evolution conflicts with The Second Law of Thermodynamics, The Law of Universal Information, and the Law of Biogenesis. We can observe these laws of science. Evolutionists make up stories. But the stories don’t make sense when compared to what we observe about these laws of science.
• Flood-denial stories don’t rationally explain what we can observe in the Grand Canyon.

When depending on the brute-beast mind, explanations can’t rationally go beyond observations. If God reveals something but doesn’t explain everything about it, we don’t commit a fallacy by believing Him. Explainers commit the limited-scope fallacy when their explanations can’t explain everything we observe. Those who use pragmatic, naturalistic thinking to explain what we observe can’t explain everything we observe.  Therefore, they commit the limited-scope fallacy.

Limiting-Presuppositions Fallacy

Using presuppositions to guide thinking

Examples:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. ~ Stephen Hawking

That’s an interesting claim, but it’s irrational. Stephen Hawking desperately wanted God to go away. He lived within the no-God presupposition and fought God all his life. Suppressing the truth in his deceptive trickery, Stephen worked within the presupposition of no God. He built a worldview of no God. Then, he used a circular reasoning process between his presuppositions, the filter of preconception, and his worldview to continually confirm the bias of his worldview. He became trapped in that paradigm, and irrational claims like the one just mentioned are examples of that fight against God.

It makes sense to begin all thinking with a presupposition of naturalism.

Why does creating an artificial limit of no spiritual realm and no involvement by God make sense?

Assumptions come out of worldviews. Thinkers often presuppose these assumptions. What we presuppose, we treat as reality rather than challenging it. Most thinkers reason within the limits of presuppositions. Presuppositions seem real because they come out of our worldviews, and our worldviews seem real to us. That’s the rule rather than the exception. When we base our thinking on assumptions or presuppositions, we can’t discern between good and evil, truth and error, or reality and make-believe.

Lip-Service Fallacy

Verbally agreeing or committing without action or true commitment

Examples:

Sandy Sandbuilder: I was a Christian, and I went to church services and youth group meetings all the time. I went to prayer meetings with my parents. I even gave money to the church. I don’t see any evidence of God. I’m now an atheist, and I spend every free minute trying to warn others not to be fooled by religion.

Rocky Rockbuilder: “Christian” is a word that means different things to different people. Tell me about your relationship with Christ. For instance, did you experience the presence of the Holy Spirit? Did the Spirit of Christ lead you, guide you, warn you, and teach you during every moment? Were you making progress in learning to discern His voice from all the other voices?

Sandy: I don’t know about that, but I can tell you I never had an experience of the Holy Spirit leading me or any of that.

Sandy Sandbuilder paid lip service but never knew the King of kings. What if his teachers had taught him how to have that relationship?

Living-Rent-Free Fallacy

Allowing a person, group of persons, or any other thing to occupy one’s mind and destroy one’s peace

Examples:

He’s letting her live rent-free in his mind.

The Christians are letting the ungodly people live rent-free in their minds.

The ungodly people are letting the Christians live rent-free in their minds.

Loaded-Language Fallacy

(a.k.a. Loaded Words, Colored Words, Colored Phrases, or Slanted Language)

Presuppositions or emotional connotations deceptively attached to language

Example:

The Monkey Trial Mark II starts in Sydney next week, with science once again going head-to-head with creationism. ~ Leigh Dayton

We notice the loaded language: “science” versus “creationism.” If Leigh didn’t want to commit this fallacy, she could have written: “The Monkey Trial Mark II starts in Sydney next week, with evolution science once again going head-to-head with Creation science.” Alternately, she could have written: “The Monkey Trial Mark II starts in Sydney next week, with evolutionism once again going head-to-head with creationism.”

Persuaders who commit the loaded-language fallacy present a slanted view. Editors and writers should avoid loaded language. And yet, they may be the worst offenders. They use the loaded language to bypass their own reasoning processes and the reasoning processes of any who listen to them. Persuaders also use loaded language to confirm their own biases. Unless we question it, loaded language influences our inner worldviews.

Loaded-Sample Fallacy

(a.k.a. Biased Statistics, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization, Unrepresentative Sample, Unrepresentative Generalization, or Sampling Bias)

Choosing a data set in a biased way to get a certain result

Examples:

That candidate could not possibly have won the election fairly. I don’t know a single person who voted for him!

Friends select friends who think as they do. The people this person knows make up a biased sample.

Tea Party members and conservatives don’t understand science. Every conservative I know is ignorant of the scientific method.

This remark asserts something statistical, but the persuader who said this isn’t basing it on sound research. A liberal professor, Dan Kahan, tested the “Tea Party Ignorance Claim.” Through a government-funded grant, he studied Tea Party members compared with non-Tea Party members. To Kahan’s surprise and dismay, he found Tea Party members ranked measurably higher in their scientific understanding than the general population. ^{(Study of Tea Party Supporters)}

Homeschooled children and children who don’t attend public schools can’t keep up when they go to college. The neighbor’s kid who went to Catholic school didn’t even go to college.

The statistics don’t support this first claim, and just the opposite is the case. Using the neighbor’s kid as a sample is also irrational since it’s not representative and the sample is too small.

Sample groups for polls are sometimes cleverly selected to get a certain result so persuaders can use the polls to mold public opinion. The Kinsey Report, for instance, was a fraud. Dr. Kinsey used a loaded sample to promote sexual immorality. Kinsey’s fraudulent report caused much of the corruption that we now see in society. Of course, the corrupted news media, educational systems, and entertainment industry willingly promoted the lies.

Lobbying Fallacy

Appealing to power, particularly governmental power, to support one’s own opinion, oppose other opinions, or both

You may wonder why laws are so irrational and unjust. Lobbyists drive the law-making process. Professional lobbyists who represent special interests rather than the interests of the general public have increasingly dominated lobbying.

Loki’s-Wager Fallacy

Thinking we can’t discuss a concept until it’s defined

Examples:

The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the universe and our own existence is one that you cannot prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression, “agnostic.” You can’t know. I’ll grant you that. When it comes to intelligent design, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature. This is to say, the old expression is, if you were to find a watch in the field, and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by someone who was thinking ahead, somebody with an organization chart with somebody at the top and you’d order screws from screw manufacturers, and springs from spring manufacturers, and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers, but this isn’t how nature works. This is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living organisms that’s provided by evolution. ~ Bill Nye

Bill is claiming we can’t know anything about God; therefore, God isn’t up for discussion. He then implies, “since we can’t know about God,” evolution is the best explanation of how everything created itself. We know Bill is wrong since we know God because He reveals Himself to us.

Rocky Rockbuilder: God created us as spirit, soul, and body.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Define spirit and soul.

Rocky: God designed our spirits to rule over our souls, and our souls are our minds.

Sandy: You committed the fallacy of failing to elucidate. You haven’t defined “spirit” and “soul” in a complete, understandable way. Therefore, we can’t talk about them.

Sandy Sandbuilder makes a rule that we must fully understand every element of reality before we can talk about it. However, by Sandy’s rule, we can’t talk about any part of reality. We don’t understand any part of reality fully.

Of course, ungodly thinkers who don’t want to know Jesus Christ apply their logic with bias. They use a flexible and short ruler to measure their own logic. Then, they use what looks like a long, straight ruler to measure any logic in support of Christ. However, when we examine their second ruler, we find it secretly flexes to prove any point they wish to prove.

Make-Believe-Reality Fallacy

The inability to know the difference between pretending and truth

Not distinguishing between concept and substance

The loss of discernment between make-believe and reality

Many fallacies strip the mind of the ability to discern between make-believe and reality. They make it hard to tell a mere figment from something real. Several smokescreen fallacies sit on the borderline of totally losing touch with reality.

Make-Believe-Reality Fallacies:

• Reasoning-to-a-Conclusion-from-a-Concept Fallacy : We can’t rationally conclude anything from something made up like a concept, explanation, or idea.
• Imaginary-Evidence Fallacy : Interpretation and imagination can seem just as if it were evidence, but imaginary evidence leads to confirmation bias.
• Phantom-Evidence Fallacy : A persuader mentions evidence, giving the illusion of evidence, but the persuader hasn’t provided any actual evidence. The persuader may show something and falsely call it “evidence,” but the so-called “evidence” fails. Either we can’t know it’s true or else it doesn’t prove what the persuader claims it proves. The persuader may call opinion “evidence.” The persuader may call a speculative explanation of an observation “evidence.” The persuader may present these deceptively as evidence. For instance, the ability to predict isn’t evidence, yet persuaders sometimes claim it is evidence. Additionally, persuaders try to confuse us with the term “evidence” since the term can mean anything from proof to opinion. The persuader may say assumptions, presuppositions, and worldviews are evidence.
• Phantom-Science Fallacy : A persuader mentions the word “science” to prove a claim, but the persuader doesn’t have any real science to back up the claim.
• Willful-Ignorance Fallacy : Instead of discussing the issue, persuaders make a deliberate effort to appear not to understand. Irrational thinkers who continually and willfully lacks understanding will eventually add this lack of understanding to their worldviews. Then their worldviews blind the irrational thinkers even more. Finally, reality seems strange, and make-believe seems real. At that point, thinking becomes futile. Useless! Their deceitful trickery suppresses truth and darkens the foolish innermost mind. Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.

These fallacies cause reality to seem like make-believe and make-believe to seem like reality. We can only overcome this problem progressively as we yield to the Holy Spirit in every part of our lives.

Ludic-Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ludus)

Applying statistical models in complex domains where we can’t account for all the variables or accurately know the value of some variables

Examples:

We’ve developed a statistical model that supports abiogenesis.

Statistical models support an age of 4.7 billion years for the earth.

It’s most likely the universe is billions of years old.

Ludus involves applying statistical models in domains more complex than the statistical models. The brute-beast human mind can do quite well in reacting to immediate sensory experience. God can grant insight and wisdom to mere humanity, and that can result in wonderful, breakthrough, scientific discoveries.

The more we extrapolate beyond our senses in the present, the less reliable our thoughts are. The statistical models become harder to corroborate, and the models break down quickly. The further we go back in time, the harder it is to find out the likelihood of various stories about past events. The more we extend the meaning of observations into the unknown, the more irrational we become and the less we can confirm any guesses we make.

We don’t have reliable ways of predicting the future either, but we can check predictions against reality when we get to the future. We think about the weather or the financial forecast. We can predict probabilities. And we can only predict for a limited time into the future. The ludic fallacy also prevents mere human minds from knowing the likelihood of spiritual, moral, or nonmaterial truth.

The brute-beast mind must limit itself to the present and has no rational way to reason much beyond that. It must work with what it can observe and test. God can reveal more, but the human mind has no mechanism to self-generate knowledge without either observation or divine revelation.

Related:

statistical fallacy and inductive reasoning

Lurking-Variable Fallacy

(a.k.a. Confounding Factor)

Failure to consider a variable when reasoning

Failure to account for a relevant variable

Examples:

The Theory of Evolution isn’t based on any assumptions.

Those who understand the so-called “Theory” and the nature of all theories know the “Theory of Evolution” depends on many assumptions. However, evolutionists hide the assumptions from students and the public.

Radiometric dating is absolute, and scientists have rationally accounted for all variables.

Lurking variables, like hidden assumptions, can change the conclusion completely. We can’t account for all the variables of radiometric dating. The answer from ungodly thinkers is to make up the added information so the equation yields the conclusion they want.

Sometimes a persuader doesn’t know about the lurking variables. At other times a persuader will purposely fail to mention the lurking variable. Persuaders often filter out factors that work against their purposes.

Related:

hidden assumption and hidden presupposition

Magical-Thinking Fallacy

(a.k.a. Miracle Thinking)

Making claims that would require magic or a miracle, and failing to mention who performs the miracle

While we associate magic with either occult or illusions, God does miracles. So while magic shows no agent or method or else a demonic agent or method, miracles show God as both the agent and method. Persuaders commit the magical-thinking fallacy when they imply an effect doesn’t have a cause. Persuaders also commit magical thinking by implying a magical creature like Mother Nature causes an effect.

Examples of Magical Thinking Quotes:

Everything is orderly for no reason at all.

Life came from non-life, but we don’t yet know how. We know Mother Nature created life.

Molecules-to-humanity evolution happened over millions of years.

Space, time, and matter came into existence from nothing in a huge explosion we call the Big Bang.

Not Magical Thinking:

God can act. God does act. God created everything and orders everything.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

I know Jesus Christ. He leads me in every part of my life.

We aren’t guilty of magical thinking when we know God’s power. We would commit a fallacy if we would assume God doesn’t sometimes do something differently. He faithfully enforces all the laws of nature with precise order. And yet, He can sometimes do things differently. What could prevent Him from doing so? Those who walk with God know, by experience, God moves and does miracles since we’ve seen Him work.

Naturalists assume God doesn’t exist. They assume God does nothing. Therefore, naturalistic thinkers always commit the magical-thinking fallacy since they have no cause for the laws of nature, mathematics, or anything else. God enforces all the laws of nature faithfully, and God says He’s the Creator and Enforcer of these laws. Humans know a little about God’s laws, so scientific laws aren’t the same as God’s laws. However, a miracle is something that He does differently.

Magical-Thinking Fallacy Abuse

Falsely accusing someone of magical thinking

Example:

Are you praying to the magic man in the sky? Ha! Ha! Ha!

Persuaders who commit magical-thinking fallacy abuse think their worldviews are reality. As a result, when we tell them something outside their worldviews, we seem insane to them. Then they may falsely accuse us of committing the magical thinking or miracle-thinking fallacy, but it’s a phantom fallacy caused by the blinding effect of a worldview in this case. Worldviews are powerful deceivers and filters keeping humans from seeing reality as it is.

Magic-Words Fallacy

Using authoritative-sounding words as proof instead of providing actual proof

Persuaders who commit the magic-words fallacy mention words like “science,” “evidence,” “proof,” “Scripture,” or “logic,” but they don’t have any real science, evidence, proof, Scripture, or logic. For instance, in phantom science, persuaders mention the word “science,” but they have no real science. They may even use a real observation, but the scientific observation doesn’t prove the claim it was supposed to prove.

In theology, persuaders mention the word “Bible” when nothing in the Bible supports the claims they attributed to the Bible. They may even quote a real Scripture, but the Scripture doesn’t prove the claim it was supposed to prove.

Examples:

I believe in the stories of evolutionism because of the evidence.

The persuader mentioned “evidence.” However, no real evidence exists. The persuader is talking about interpretations of observations and calling those interpretations “evidence.” Persuaders base their interpretations on wild assumptions, accepted traditions, conceptual frameworks, worldviews, and stories and call those interpretations “evidence.” If they do that, the so-called “evidence” is just made-up stuff.

Science proves the earth is billions of years old.

This persuader uses some scientific observation, testing, and calculations to calculate the billions of years. However, the persuader also assumes some numbers. Persuaders use assumed numbers when they calculate the age of the earth. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. So “science,” as this persuader uses it, is just a magic word.

The Bible clearly states that God gave us a mind to figure things out, and we don’t need God to understand Scripture or any other part of reality.

No such Bible verse exists, so this persuader is using “Bible” as a magic word. Persuaders quote actual Bible verses to “prove” this very point, but the Bible verses don’t support the claim. Also, these persuaders ignore other Bible verses that refute their claim.

I use logic to show errors in Scripture.

The persuader is using “logic” as a magic word and basing logic on unproven premises. Sometimes, we may question the premises through several layers before we can show the premise is unproven. In other cases, persuaders don’t even try to use sound logic. In this case, the persuader didn’t state the logic. If you were to ask for the precise logic, you would keep yourself busy swatting down many fallacies, but you wouldn’t find any sound logic proving “errors exist in Scripture.”

Magician’s-Choice Fallacy

(a.k.a. Closer’s-Choice, Fallacy of False Alternatives, Fallacy of False Choice, Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypotheses, or Limited-Alternatives Fallacy)

Presenting a choice but creating an illusion since the choice is irrational

Examples:

You must decide between science and the Bible.

Both are valid, and they don’t conflict. Since science and the Bible are presented as a choice when they don’t conflict, they create the illusion of choice and the illusion of conflict.

There isn’t enough time for these deposits to form in 4,000 years since the Genesis Flood, so they must have formed over billions of years.

They formed during the Genesis Flood, but the magician didn’t offer that choice in this magic trick. The magician offered two choices when three choices were available. The third, unmentioned choice is the correct choice. The Genesis Flood laid down most of the deposits. Other events laid down the rest since that flood.

There’s another choice for the basis of thinking beyond making up stuff or divine revelation, and that choice is observation.

God reveals through observation, but some people refuse to acknowledge that revelation and they take credit for the observation. However, the claim is about “the basis for thinking.” Thinking or reasoning involves going beyond immediate sensory experience. Observation is immediate sensory experience, so it isn’t reason; it isn’t thinking. It’s observing. Therefore, it’s not a third choice for the basis of reasoning.

Jude mentioned the brute-beast mind that’s capable of reacting to sensory data but incapable of rational thought. He said those who follow this mind are devoid of the Holy Spirit. So reacting to sensory data isn’t the same as trying to reason to a true conclusion. When only two choices exist, offering a third choice is misleading and illusory.

When someone gives us a magician’s choice, they intend to trick us by either withholding choices or presenting that false or impossible choices exist. For instance, when they withhold choices, they give limited choices even though other choices exist. In that case, they’ve stated some choices, but they’ve left out one or more choices they haven’t stated. A persuader may use a magician’s choice by implying we must choose between two things when we can choose both choices or neither. And just to make it trickier, the persuader may give us false, non-existent choices while withholding some choices. Magician’s choice is a form of false choice.

Majoring-in-the-Minors Fallacy

Paying attention to unimportant things while missing the important things

While persuaders can commit this fallacy in many ways, they usually commit it by focusing on what God will burn up.

Detail:

For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as one being snatched from the fire. ~ 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Berean Study Bible

Quantity isn’t what God considers to be important, but the choice of building material is the major issue. Only gold, silver, and precious stones will survive the fire, but wood, hay, and straw will burn and be gone. Even so, how many people still choose to build on the foundation of Jesus Christ with wood, hay, and straw?

Gold typifies deity in Scripture. This gold represents purifying the Lord God in our hearts and edifying (building up) Jesus Christ in us. ^{(Galatians 4:19)} The Holy Spirit is forming Him within us. Silver typifies redemption in Scripture. Christ is setting us free from the world, the fleshly nature, and the devil. We’re redeemed to the extent we’ve died to the fleshly pride, human weakness, and sinful desires. We’re redeemed to the degree we’re transfigured into the image and likeness of Christ. Precious stones typify those who have come to Christ believing, and this lasting work will include how we built up Christ in any person, either bringing them to Christ or encouraging them in Christ.

Wood typifies humanity and the self-righteous works humanity generates. Hay typifies pride in Scripture and everything that we do to make ourselves popular or to make ourselves look good in the eyes of others and our own eyes. Stubble typifies sin and all the false promises of satisfaction, happiness, and fulfillment that come with sin. Whatever God didn’t lead us to do and do through us is sin. Many religious activities are sinful if God didn’t lead us to them and do them through us. We need to follow the Lamb of God.

When we focus on the wood, hay, and stubble, we’re majoring in the minors. In the world, many people spend their entire lives majoring in these minors and trying to compel us to compete with them at this level. Our fleshly nature wants to go there. However, the fire of God will burn up all such effort when He tests it by fire. To avoid majoring in the minors, we concentrate on Christ, listen to His voice, and yield only to Him in humble submission.

Marginalizing Fallacy

Implying that people who hold a certain viewpoint belong to a fringe group

Examples:

Here tonight, we’re gonna have two stories, and we can compare Mr. Ham’s story to a story from what I will call the story from the outside, from mainstream science. ~ Bill Nye

. . . the story from the outside, from mainstream science. . . . ~ Bill Nye

This is what geologists on the outside do. ~ Bill Nye

Now out there in regular academic pursuits, regular geology ~ Bill Nye

Ken Ham’s Creation model ~ Bill Nye

There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham, and that’s the problem for me. You want us [the entire population of the world other than Ken Ham?] to take your word for what’s written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. ~ Bill Nye

. . . science, I mean in the mainstream ~ Bill Nye

The logical fallacy of marginalizing is an extreme form of the bandwagon fallacy, using popular opinion to decide what’s true instead of using proof and rational thought. Persuaders also commit the marginalizing fallacy to encourage peer pressure. Here’s why marginalizing is a fallacy. Persuaders use it to imply a conclusion is false without proving the conclusion is false. One person who stands alone in truth against a world of lies is still standing on the truth.

Martyr-Complex Fallacy

Desiring to be a martyr while avoiding responsibility

Pointing out one’s suffering or persecution while avoiding responsibility

Examples:

I have suffered greatly through many microaggressions evil people committed against me. The worst of these was when a man told me not to be hysterical. For this reason, I can’t work and I ought to receive more compensation.

Our race has been oppressed for generations and we ought to receive compensation.

Matter-of-Interpretation Fallacy

Claiming all opinions are equally valid since they’re all just differences in how reality is understood

Claiming to have the correct interpretation without a rational way to know one’s own interpretation is correct

Examples:

You see we just interpret Ephesians 5:3 differently. You think God restricts sexual activity, and I don’t. “But let sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness not even be named among you, as also is proper to saints.” To me, that means to do what you want to do.

Human interpretation means nothing. If we disagree, then let’s seek God’s mind until we agree.

The trouble with creationists is they make the wrong assumptions, so they interpret observations incorrectly.

This quote came from a college professor. What could she mean by “wrong assumptions?” Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. There are no right assumptions. Basing thought on made-up stuff is insane. Evolutionists interpret observations based on assumptions while God interprets observations to show He created everything just as the Bible says He did. Since God knows all things, He doesn’t need to assume anything.

Your interpretation of Acts 19:1-6 entirely wrong.

Once again, human interpretation means nothing. What is the Holy Spirit saying?

McNamara Fallacy

Basing a conclusion solely on quantitative observations and ignoring all other factors

Examples:

• When researchers run clinical trials of tumor treatments, they can easily measure the length of time patients don’t get worse under treatment, but that’s not the most important statistic to measure. Overall survival and quality of life after treatment are more meaningful but harder to measure. When researchers take the easy measurement and ignore harder measurements, they commit the McNamara fallacy.
• Persuaders tell young girls they’ll be happy if they’re normal. Then they say it’s normal for young women to get romantically involved with young men in temporary relationships. They take easily measured things into account. However, on the level of the physical, they don’t consider what’s harder to measure. A cuddle or a kiss releases oxytocin into the young woman’s system. God designed oxytocin to induce trust and bonding in the woman to the man she’s with. God hasn’t yet revealed all the effects on the soul and spirit. However, God does say He set an order for various aspects of life. He set an order for the Church, the home, personal relationships, and business relationships. God said He reserved intimacy between a man and woman for marriage. In marriage, the man is to love the woman as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for the Church. In the same way, the woman is to reverence and obey her husband. They commit themselves to each other for life, excluding all others. Distorting these ordinances can’t produce long-term success and happiness. That means a young woman is ultimately going to be unhappy and unfulfilled if she lives a lifestyle in conflict with everything that God designed her to be. Measuring that long-term emptiness and meaninglessness is difficult. Persuaders commit the McNamara fallacy if they focus on what’s easily measured when the long-term, unmeasured result is sad.

Meaningless-Question Fallacy

Asking a question that can’t be answered rationally

Asking a question irrelevant to the discussion at hand

Examples:

Can God create a rock so large He can’t lift it?

Can God make square circles?

God is rational. He’s all-powerful, but not everything is part of His nature, like being insane. An ungodly person can ask an insane question, but God can’t be insane. God can’t lie. God can’t be unfaithful. God can’t be unloving—even His judgments are acts of love.

Who created God?

God is eternal, has no creator, and has always existed, so the question makes no sense because of the hidden false presupposition in the question: “Someone created God.” Naturalistic thinkers may use circular reasoning to think natural laws apply to God. In our created world, we know created things must have a creator, and effects must have causes. However, God explains that He’s eternal and doesn’t have a cause or creator. He’s the first mover in all things.

What would you do if someone found absolute proof the biblical history is in error?

This persuader asked a hypothetical question. She asked, “What if someone found absolute proof?” Since the “what if” isn’t going to happen, the question is meaningless. Without divine revelation, no one will find absolute proof of anything.

The reason no one will find absolute proof is simple. Without the Holy Spirit and His ongoing flow of revelation and glory, the human mind is like the mind of a brute beast. Humans can record observations and communicate observations to a greater extent than beasts. However, they’re limited to what their natural senses can perceive if they refuse to seek divine leading and correction.

Without divine revelation, the human mind has no way to think rationally beyond what the five natural senses take in. That means the unanointed human mind has no way to know anything beyond the material realm. Objective statements about God, the spiritual realm, ethics, truth, morality, or goodness are outside of what the human mind can interpret without divine revelation. Without divine revelation, all such thought is insane.

Even in the material realm, it’s irrational to speak of proof without divine revelation. Science is pragmatic only. Science never proves anything. Science only gives us ideas about what works and what doesn’t work. Those ideas can all change tomorrow with the next discovery.

God reveals history through Scripture. Historians don’t even try to prove anything. They interpret what they observe. They base their interpretations of observations on their worldviews and opinions. Any human interpretation of biblical history may be in error.

Hypothetical questions may seem intelligent, but they’re often irrational. They’re irrational if they attempt to travel into a world of make-believe or blur the line between reality and make-believe.

Message-Control Fallacy

(a.k.a. Censorship)

Trying to suppress any information, opinion, or comment

Covering up and quashing anything that conflicts with a favored opinion or story

Examples:

• Google, Twitter, and Facebook are taking steps to limit what they term “hate speech,” but they’re expanding this so-called “hate speech” to include biblical teachings or anything that doesn’t agree with leftist-globalist political agendas. They push socialism, globalism, godlessness, sexual immorality of all kinds, evolutionism, and old earth theologies. They find ways to limit or block any messages that counter these.
• It’s common for ungodly people to work together to “vote down” a video on Youtube.com. On Youtube.com, no one can view the video after a certain number of downvotes, so this trick works as a form of censorship. Ungodly people do the same with books on Amazon.com.
• The ACLU actively works to control messages. They work to limit what people can say. As much as possible, they try to stop students from knowing about the severe problems with the story of evolution.
• Public schools continue to give partial facts regarding science, history, and philosophy. They promote stories of molecules-to-humanity evolution, billions of years, uniformitarianism, naturalism, and materialism. They promote sexual immorality, socialism, racism, ungodliness, and moral relativism. They exclude evidence of the six-day Creation and the disastrous Genesis Flood. They try to quench free enterprise and defame America. They don’t teach only one race exists. They exclude God, biblical morality, and moral absolutes.
• Some of those with political power dumb down Americans while making them more dependent on the government. Their policies promote an illiterate populace who can’t think critically to discern between what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense. They massage the egos of the people they’ve brainwashed by telling them they are intellectuals, but only if they robotically repeat what the elite say. The people the elite have conditioned in this way lose the capacity to understand biblical revelation, morality, or spiritual matters. They also lose the capacity to think critically, but they feel like intellectuals who weigh everything and who have amazing discernment.
• Ungodliness, Flood-denial, Creation-denial, Bible-denial, and every form of immorality have dominated mass communication. We see it in news, entertainment, education, museums, and every kind of media.
• Some people try to silence God’s message. They want to monopolize the message with ungodliness. They hate home-schooling, Christian news organizations, The Creation Museum, The Ark Encounter, Creation Ministries, or anything that infringes on their monopoly. In some countries, they imprison or kill Christians for proclaiming the Gospel. In China, if a church puts up a cross, they must put a portrait of Chairman Mao on one side and a portrait of Chairman Xi on the other side. The Chinese Communist Party tracks people electronically and gives them a social score for their activities and conversations. Those with low social scores eventually lose the ability to do anything and are eliminated. Christian leaders are put in prison camps. Only the state can be a god.

Related:

evolutionism message control

Metaphorical-Ambiguity Fallacy

Taking a metaphor literally

Example:

• The story of Br’er Rabbit is purely metaphorical. Taking it as literal would distort the Georgia folktale.
• When Jesus taught in parables, he used metaphors. He spoke of the seed that was sown. He said the seed is a metaphor for the word, or utterance, of God. Thinking the Kingdom of Heaven is the physical act of sowing physical seeds in a physical garden would commit the metaphorical-ambiguity fallacy.

Fallacy Abuse:

Some Christians believe much of the Old Testament Bible and much of the New Testament Bible is purely metaphorical. God speaks metaphorically through Scripture. God speaks in types and shadows of spiritual things and of things to come through the literal history. In other words, it’s both metaphor and history. However, those who disbelieve the history may say those who believe the history are committing the metaphorical-ambiguity fallacy. And yet, no observation proves these historical accounts aren’t historically accurate, and no observation proves they’re only metaphors. The style of the writing indicates they’re history.

Still, some people claim the history in the Bible is a metaphor. They claim the Law of Moses, the Ten Commandments, or the life of Christ is pure metaphor. As soon as they believe the history didn’t happen, any whim could remove any part of Scripture by the same rule. They can claim Scripture doesn’t say what it says, but that it says what they say it says. Of course, their claim is purely arbitrary. To be arbitrary is to be irrational. Anyone using this phantom metaphorical-ambiguity fallacy needs to prove those parts of the Bible are metaphorical only. Such proof isn’t available, however.

Methodological-Naturalism Fallacy

Treating the false assumption of naturalism as if it were fact and using this assumption as a filter to evaluate observations, experiences, and life in general

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical idea that claims we must interpret all observations without reference to God or anything spiritual. It’s applied atheism. It’s the removal of God as a cause. Methodological naturalism is irrational since it creates an artificial filter for interpreting everything in life. This filter distorts the interpretations of science because any attempts to define causal relationships with naturalistic presuppositions are never fruitful and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and naturalism of the gaps hypotheses.

Part of methodological naturalism almost makes sense. Naturalism admits no one can reason beyond his or her immediate sensations without divine revelation. No one can rationally reason about causes without divine revelation, since trying to reason about causes always goes beyond what anyone can observe. We can observe relationships between observations. We can show relationships between events exist. For instance, we can show every physical action results in an equal and opposite physical reaction. Based on this, we can build a rocket. However, correlation does not equal causation. To assume correlation equals causation is the post-hoc fallacy.

No one can even reason that his or her immediate sensations are reliable. God says our immediate senses are somewhat reliable, but we can’t reason to that conclusion without God. Well, we can reason to it, but, without God’s revelation, our reasoning wouldn’t be sound. No one can reason to a true premise without divine revelation. We need a true premise to think rationally. Therefore, no one can think rationally without divine revelation. Without divine revelation, we’re like brute beasts who depend on their five senses and are devoid of the Holy Spirit.

However, anyone can do science if they assume certain divine revelations are true. Ungodly thinkers can assume these revelations and do real science if they don’t extrapolate beyond their immediate sensations and these revelations. As soon as they start making up stories about causes or history, they become irrational. God does reveal truth to them. They accept much of this truth without thanking or glorifying God for it. And so they erroneously think this truth comes from assumption or the supposed ability of the human mind to manufacture truth from nothing. The problem ungodly thinkers face is, having refused to acknowledge God Who reveals truth, they can’t discern between the truth God reveals and the lies that come from human minds or demons.

The more they extrapolate, the more unscientific their thinking becomes. Ungodly thinkers can use methodological naturalism to make cell phones, computers, or any physical product they can test by using their five senses. They become unscientific when they try to extrapolate beyond their immediate sensations to matters like truth, right, wrong, goodness, history, or spiritual matters. History is particularly interesting. When the history is recent, ungodly thinkers don’t need to extrapolate as much, so their extrapolations are more scientific. As the history is further in the past, ungodly thinkers need to extrapolate more. Then, their extrapolations are less scientific. However, even looking at current news media, different journalists don’t agree on how to interpret yesterday’s history. Their interpretations reflect their individual worldviews.

Methodological naturalism rests on the following unsupported claims.

First unsupported claim:

Science can only explain what happens in the universe regarding observed or testable natural mechanisms.

The naturalist claims we must explain everything without God or spiritual influence. When naturalists begin with bias, they must end with bias. Of course, this claim of naturalism proves nothing. It’s an arbitrary, and thus irrational, definition of “science.” Naturalists who make this claim are refuting themselves since they can’t use the scientific method to observe or test naturalism.

Second unsupported claim:

If any supernatural beings exist, they never interfere in nature and especially in prehistory.

How could anyone test a statement like that since it’s pure made-up stuff? If nature were all that exists, the universe might act chaotically. However, the universe acts according to an order. If nature were all that exists, we couldn’t depend on our minds to tell whether nature acts randomly or orderly. If our minds came from randomness, they would also be random and could be fooling us. Therefore, naturalism can’t account for nature being predictable. And without predictable nature, we couldn’t do science. Naturalism can’t even account for rational thought.

Third unsupported claim:

If supernatural causes (like God and angels) exist, any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard, and it would be impossible to study Creation systematically.

The exact opposite is the truth since there’s no reason other than the orderly God for the order of the universe or the laws of nature, math, and logic. Therefore, without God, any natural action would be arbitrary or haphazard since we wouldn’t know the cause. Without God, we can’t study the Creation systematically. Naturalists propose a mystical and unknown organizing force, but they can’t even come up with a coherent story about what that force might be.

Science disproves God.

We can break down the logic that leads to this claim: “Science disproves God.”

Consider the following questions. How did everything we observe come to be? Why does everything seem designed? How did life begin? How could complex information systems be added to cells and result in evolution? However, before we can study these questions, the doctrine of naturalism insists we must agree God couldn’t possibly be any part of the answer. Then we can dream up answers to these questions as long as those answers don’t include God. Therefore, none of the answers includes God. Therefore, science disproves God. Insanity!

The entire logical path is based on circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a method to hide the axiomatic-thinking fallacies. This is one example of a possible way to reason to the conclusion “Science disproves God.” However, anyone who tries to reason to this conclusion will be base their reasoning on axiomatic-thinking fallacies. Axiomatic thinking fallacies consist of making up stuff and thinking the made-up stuff is true.

Middle-Puzzle-Part Fallacy

Making a spurious connection between different things by changing the meaning of words

Example:

Premise: Science shows evolution happened since we can observe evolution every day. [“Evolution” means observed changes from one generation of living organisms to another.]

Conclusion: Therefore, anyone who denies evolution is denying science. [“Evolution” now means the unobserved molecules-to-humanity by natural processes over millions of years.]

This persuader falsely claims a connection exists between science and the stories of evolutionism. Persuaders have successfully made that false claim for over 100 years. Clueless judges have gone down the primrose path with this fallacy, making irrational rulings in court.

The middle-puzzle-part fallacy is a smokescreen. Smokescreen fallacies make reasoning based on made-up stuff seem real. Whenever an ungodly thinker commits a logical fallacy, the ungodly thinker roots the fallacy in the ungodly-thinking fallacy. The ungodly-thinking fallacy consists of axiomatic-thinking fallacies (made-up stuff) hidden by smokescreen fallacies. Some people call this problem Agrippa’s trilemma. The ungodly-thinking fallacy defines the problem more comprehensively, accurately, and simply. No one can know anything except by divine revelation. Some have claimed humans can only know logic and math without divine revelation; however, that’s not true. Without divine revelation, we would have no reason to trust either logic or math, but God has given and revealed both logic and math. Naturalistic science can only work pragmatically because of this weakness of human reasoning.

Mind-reading Fallacy

(a.k.a. Reading into Things)

Using supposed mind-reading as proof of a claim

Examples:

I know what you’re thinking.

What mechanism would one person use to know what another person is thinking? Sometimes, we may be able to guess what someone is thinking if we know the other person well or if we can read their body language. However, we never really know their heart. They don’t even know their own heart. Only God can judge the heart. We can sometimes watch what they do and judge whether their actions are right or wrong, but we can’t know their inner motivations.

When you say Jesus Christ is leading you, He isn’t really leading you, but you’re just imagining He’s leading you.

Claiming to know the inner spiritual experiences, inner thoughts, or motivations of others are forms of mind-reading. Unless someone tells us their motivations or we’ve received a divine revelation, we can’t know the motivations and inner thoughts of others. At the same time, God does reveal some motivations in some instances. God reveals the motivation for rejecting Christ. God says they love darkness rather than light since they don’t want Him to direct them into righteousness.

You have no way to know my inner thoughts to tell me God has revealed Himself to me and I know God exists. You said I’m without excuse, and you have no way to know that. You’re trying to read my mind. Don’t you know that’s irrational?

The ungodly thinker claims to be an atheist. He’s reacting to a follower of Christ. The follower of Christ told the atheist what God revealed about this atheist and every other person. God does know the heart of every person. He knows our innermost thoughts and motivations.

However, the ungodly atheist has no way to know his claims are true. The ungodly atheist makes a claim. He says, “You have no way to know my inner thoughts to tell me that God has revealed Himself to me.” By claiming this, the ungodly atheist is claiming to know the inner spiritual experience of the Christ-follower. That’s the irony.

The ungodly atheist is claiming God isn’t revealing this information to the Christ-follower, but God reveals this same information to anyone who reads the first chapter of Romans. And, God reveals that same information to the atheist when the Christ-follower speaks to the atheist as God’s oracle and speaks God’s words by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Christ is revealing Himself once again through His words as He speaks through the Christ-follower. No one can say these words but by the Holy Spirit as we learn through First Corinthians in the twelfth chapter. The atheist has been rejecting Christ for a long time, and he’s just continuing that rejection as he rejects Christ again. In the process, the atheist commits the mind-reading fallacy.

You said I reject Christ because I don’t want His light to expose my evil deeds. You can’t know that. You’re trying to read my mind.

This is another ironic example. God says those who reject Christ do so because their deeds are evil. God says this as He speaks to us through this Scripture:

And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the Light and does not come to the Light, so that his works may not be exposed; but the one practicing the truth comes to the Light, that his works may be manifest as having been done in God.” ~ John 3:19-21 Berean Literal Bible

The disbeliever may object and say his or her deeds aren’t evil. However, whatever is not of faith is sin. Righteousness consists of listening to God’s voice, honoring Him and receiving the Living Word from His mouth, receiving His Faith that gives access to His grace. Righteousness becomes complete as we yield our minds and the members of our bodies to His righteousness so His grace can do His works through us. Everything else is evil.

Misdirection Fallacy

(a.k.a. Distraction or Relevance Fallacies)

Emphasizing one thing to avoid detection of another thing

Misinterpretation Fallacy

Concerning statements:

Explaining a statement in a way that isn’t what the statement meant

Concerning reality:

Explaining a part of reality in a way that doesn’t reflect reality

Example:

Wow! The Bible talks about motorcycles. Here in Joshua 6:27, it says the noise of Joshua’s Triumph was heard throughout the land.

A major reason for denominations is doctrinal variation. Theologians tell us they base these different doctrines on Scripture. However, Scripture doesn’t cause the difference. Human interpretations and fallacies cause differences. The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for those who stand in God’s Presence, and, if God is revealing, then He will be consistent. Sometimes, divisions spring from semantics when the beliefs are identical or at least much closer than the two parties think. Sometimes, divisions spring up when someone thinks partial truth is the whole truth.

Evolutionists and creationists both start with the same physical evidence. Evolutionists interpret the observations to “prove” the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story. Creationists interpret the evidence to “prove” the Creation-Flood account. If evolutionists and creationists use Scriptures, they both use the same Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean they’re listening to the Holy Spirit. They may be interpreting the Scripture by human rationalization. With a single assumption, the conclusion can land wherever they like.

Human interpretation often adds information to or removes information from Scripture, observation, experience, or anything else. Adding information or removing information leads to misinterpretation. ^{(Interpretation as a Way of Knowing)} For example, interpreting the statement of a person will often add to that person’s statement or diminish that person’s statement. When an ungodly explainer adds information during interpretation, the information source is making up stuff. And yet, explainers treat their interpretations as if they were rational even though their interpretations can never be rational if they base them on made-up stuff.

Misleading-Context Fallacy

(a.k.a. Contextomy)

Presenting a word, phrase, concept, quote, entity, or proposition but giving a false impression by leaving out the circumstance, surrounding issues, or surrounding words

We can commit the misleading-context fallacy if we consider a word, phrase, concept, quote, entity, or proposition without considering the related information. For instance, we may take quotes out of context. We may try to solve a problem without defining the problem. We might not understand what’s causing the problem. We may use emphasis as a way to distort a quote or something else. By stressing certain words, we might change the meaning. The original emphasis was the context. Distortion happens in many ways.

Sometimes, we may take something out of context for analysis. We do that when we create models of things too complex to model as a whole. However, we must remember the model is just a model and not reality. We fool ourselves if we treat a model as if it were part of reality.

Examples of the Misleading-Context Fallacy / Contextomy:

• Taking a quote out of context
• Taking an experience out of context
• Taking an observation out of context
• Abstracting part of reality and thinking the abstraction is reality
• Believing a worldview

Misleading-Vividness Fallacy

Including many details in a description to create the illusion that it’s more likely or probable

Examples:

The persuader who commits the fallacy of misleading vividness gives many details to describe an event or entity. This vividness makes the event or entity seem more likely or probable. However, it doesn’t make it more likely or probable. It just makes it seem that way. The vividness substitutes for proof. It’s fake proof. If we tell interesting stories and include unnecessary detail, we don’t necessarily commit a fallacy by doing that. We commit the misleading-vividness fallacy if we use vividness as the reason to believe.

Rocky Rockbuilder: Mutation doesn’t add universal information, but mutation destroys information.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Loss of information is interesting. You could say when two bases were taken out of the human version of MYH16 but were left intact in all other primates, it was a loss of information. But, it is likely if that gene was kept intact, our skulls would not be able to grow enough to support our brains. Humans lost that gene, but the presence of that gene is best explained if all primates share a common ancestor. It also raises the question of why God would leave such non-functional genes in our genome if we were created separately from other primates.

Rocky: It sounds like you presuppose Darwinism. I see you added details to your story, but details don’t make your story true. It sounds like you’re saying you don’t know what the function of the gene is, therefore it has no function. What proof do you have, beyond speculation, that humans lost that gene? Did you observe it or presume it? And how did you calculate the probability that a common ancestor best explains the presence of that gene rather than a common Designer, God? If you calculated a probability of that common ancestor, why didn’t you mention the number, the percentage of probability? If you calculated a probability, did you assume any of the factors? How did you validate the formula you used in the calculation? The answer is you assume all those things, and you can prove anything to yourself if you allow yourself even a single assumption.

Sandy Sandbuilder is committing an axiomatic-thinking fallacy but hiding the fallacy with misleading vividness. He creates the misleading vividness by committing several other axiomatic-thinking fallacies. He’s assuming the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story is true to prove the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story is true. Rocky points that out by asking questions. Sandy never answered.

If you visit the national zoo in Washington D.C.—it’s a hundred and sixty-three acres—and they have 400 species—by the way, this picture that you’re seeing was taken by spacecraft in space orbiting the earth. If you told my grandfather, let alone my father, that we had that capability, they would have been amazed. That capability comes from our fundamental understanding of gravity, of material science, of physics, and life-science where you go looking. This place, as any zoo, is often criticized for how it treats its animals. They have 400 species on 163 acres, 66 hectares. Is it reasonable that Noah and his colleagues, his family, were able to maintain 14,000 animals and themselves and feed them aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone’s ever been able to build? ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye is committing the logical fallacy of misleading vividness. He feels Noah couldn’t possibly have put the animals on the ark because some people criticize a well-funded zoo for how it treats animals. That conclusion doesn’t follow from Bill’s premises. Bill frames this irrational statement in detail and technology, spacecrafts taking pictures, and so on. The details make the irrational statement seem credible, but it isn’t credible. Persuaders use these techniques because they work. It’s easy to trick the human mind this way.

I travel around. I have a great many family members in Danville, VA, one of the U.S.’s most livable cities; it’s lovely. And, I was driving along, and there was a sign in front of a church: “Big Bang Theory. You got to be kidding me. God. Now, why would someone at the church, a pastor, for example, put that sign up unless he or she didn’t believe that the big bang was a real thing? I just want to review briefly with everybody why we accept—in the outside world—why we accept the big bang. Edwin Hubble was sitting at Mt. Wilson . . . sat there at this very big telescope night after night staring at the heavens, and he found that the stars are moving apart. Stars are moving apart. And he wasn’t sure why, but it was clear that the stars are moving farther and farther apart all the time. So people talked about it for a couple decades. And then another astronomer, Fred Hoyle, just remarked, ‘Well, it was like there was a big bang.’ There was an explosion. This is to say since everything is moving apart, it’s reasonable to say that at one time they were all together. There’s a place from whence these things expanded. And it was a remarkable insight. But people went still questioning it for decades. Scientists, conventional scientists, questioning it for decades. These two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space, radio astronomy . . . there was this hiss . . . had found this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers. Astronomers running numbers, doing math, predicted that, in the cosmos, would be left over this echo, this energy from the big bang that would be detectable. And they detected it. We built the cosmic observatory for background emissions, the COBE spacecraft, and it matched exactly, exactly the astronomers’ predictions. You gotta respect that. It’s a wonderful thing. ~ Bill Nye

Bill makes it exciting and vivid, but it doesn’t answer the question that he’s claiming to answer: “why accept the big bang?” However, the misleading vividness almost gives the false impression that Bill’s claim of a big bang happening is somewhat valid even though it’s not supported by what he said. It’s a bare assertion without support, but misleading vividness makes it seem real.

Misquoting Fallacy

Citing a quotation with small changes that change the original meaning of the quotation

Citing a quotation while distorting the message of the original quotation

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Misquoting:

• Ungodly thinkers often misquote the Bible either to discredit it or to support an extra-biblical theory.
• Politicians often misquote each other as straw-man arguments. Journalists parrot the misquotes as if they’re all reading from the same script.
• Gil Grissom of CSI claimed the Bible says, “Life starts with the blood.” His misquote was an effort to deny life begins at conception. However, the Bible actually says, “The life is in the blood,” which doesn’t deny life beginning at conception. Beyond that, God says, “I knew you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart for me before you were born.”

Misreporting-in-Mass-Media Fallacy

Using various forms of large-scale communication to promote a lie

Examples:

The news media’s constant attack on biblical history

Time Magazine has not covered the Creation-evolution issue very well over the years, including some perpetual misreporting (as well as a strong bias against those who question evolution). For example, for more than six years, Time Magazine has been incorrectly reporting that in 1999, the Board of Education in the state of Kansas supposedly eliminated evolution from its science curriculum. Obviously, Time reporters (and its columnist Charles Krauthammer) did not read the approved 1999 standards. “Biological evolution,” for example, was expected to be known by students in grades 9-12 (p. 79 of the standards), and there were other references to evolution (for example, students were expected to know evolution as it relates to topics like adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations).

A “Science Daily” article says, “From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?” ~ Creation Evolution Headlines

More Examples:

• Sixteen Fake News Articles
• Fake News: NBC Spreads False Claim President Trump Did Not Visit Troops at ‘Christmastime’
• Fallacy of Omission: 2018 Top Ten Stories Ignored By The Fake News

http://creation.com/slaughter-of-the-dissidents

http://creation.com/time-to-consider-other-persons-of-the-year

https://crev.info/2014/02/just-say-no-to-evolutionary-speculation/#sthash.AKeE8iMQ.dpuf

Misrepresenting-the-Facts Fallacy

Basing a premise on untrue information

Distorting the facts is a fallacy of misrepresentation.

Example:

For us, in the scientific community, I remind you, that when we find an idea that’s not tenable, that doesn’t work, that doesn’t fly, that doesn’t hold water, whatever idiom you’d like to embrace, we throw it away. We’re delighted. ~ Bill Nye

While Bill’s statement about throwing away ideas that aren’t tenable may hold for many things, the discussion was about the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-humanity story. This story is indefensible. However, many fallacies prop it up. This story survives by intimidation and message control. Bill’s performance during the debate is a testimony to closed-mindedness. However, those who challenge the sacred cow dogmas of the elite of the “scientific community,” find themselves ostracized and fighting to keep their jobs. Bill is misrepresenting the facts.

Missing-Link Fallacy

Leaving out critical information (missing link) that would change the result of reasoning

Example:

We can line up fossils according to similarity. Therefore, one-celled simple living organisms evolved into ever more complex living organisms until we have all the variety we see today.

This argument gives us an example of a missing link. The missing link is we can line up hundreds of nuts and bolts (or any other objects) according to similarity, but lining things up proves nothing about origins. Researchers haven’t found one indisputable example of a transitional form to date. The argument commits a missing-link fallacy by forgetting to mention that. They should have found millions. We have another missing link. A common designer would explain similarities and many of the designs that don’t fit the molecules-to-humanity story. Also missing from this argument is the fact that God says He created everything. This argument fails to say the argument is just telling creative stories based on arbitrary assumptions while the competing account is divine revelation. Failing to admit those facts is a missing link fallacy. Therefore, the entire argument comes down to made-up stuff versus divine revelation.

Missing-the-Point Fallacy

Making an argument or comment irrelevant to the topic under discussion

I try to be a good Christian and do what’s right.

This Christian misses God’s point. God created us and redeemed us for righteousness, but it’s His righteousness, not our own. God’s point is He wants a relationship with us in which He leads and we yield ourselves to Him in willing submission. As we do that, His righteousness springs up within us. Trying to be “good persons” in our human effort frustrates God’s purpose and God’s point.

Thinkers may not realize they missed the point. Or they may not hear or understand the point. Sometimes the point seems unreal to them since reality is far outside their worldviews. Sometimes, persuaders purposely miss the point as a tactic to avoid an issue. They may also develop a straw-man argument by missing the point.

Mistaking-an-Interpretation-for-an-Observation Fallacy

Subconsciously interpreting observations

Example:

We can observe billions of years through empirical science.

Observers may mistake interpretations for observations without conscious effort. When they do that, they can’t know the difference between observation and the fantasy of interpretation All observers have worldviews. They have expectations. They are biased. When observation conflicts with expectation, interpretation can replace observation. Observers can deceive themselves, thinking they have observed their interpretations.

Misunderstanding-the-Nature-of-Statistics Fallacy

(a.k.a. Innumeracy)

Committing a statistical fallacy due to ignorance of math

Examples:

• gamblers fallacy
• hasty generalization
• false precision
• biased statistics
• ludus

We can’t use statistics for deductive reasoning, so statistics can’t lead us to a true conclusion. The best it can do is to create a tentative premise for inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning leads to tentative conclusions. We can’t draw concrete or definitive conclusions from inductive reasoning.

Misuse-of-Averages Fallacy

Thinking something is OK because it’s average

Example:

Three days a week, I’m aggressive to the point of being obnoxious, and on the other days I’m so passive I won’t take action on anything, so I’m about right on average.

Misuse-of-Etymology Fallacy

Believing, implying, or saying the oldest or original meaning of a word is its true or proper meaning

Example:

A politician used the word, “hysterical,” to describe the woman against whom he was running. The news media immediately attacked him for the sexist remark. You might ask, how would that be sexist? It turns out the word, “hysterical,” once meant “of the womb.” Who knew?

The meaning of a word is never proof of anything. We define words to make sure other people understand what we’re saying. However, definitions aren’t proof. To argue about definitions is silly. To use definitions as proof is deceptive trickery.

In Scripture, the Holy Spirit may lead us to look up the original language meanings to understand what God is saying.

If you read Leviticus 11:13–20, you find that it lists many birds and also includes a bat among the birds. Then it calls them all fowls, which is an error in Scripture. They thought bats were birds, but they’re mammals. That shows the ignorance of the writer. It proves the Bible isn’t inspired.

The word “fowl” is translated from the word “owph,” which literally means “have a wing.” It’s a word that applies even to winged insects. This example is typical of many such arguments against the Bible based on the misuse-of-etymology fallacy.

Misused-Statistics Fallacy

(a.k.a. Lying with Statistics, Abuse of Statistics, or Statistical Fallacy)

The use of statistics in ways that blur the distinction between reality and make-believe

Examples:

All scientists are evolutionists.

The persuader didn’t include any non-evolutionists in the sample.

You can go to seashores where there is sand. This is what geologists on the outside do, study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas, and we can see it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone. ~ Bill Nye

Some people think it takes a long time, but Bill tries to give the impression that all scientists think it takes a long time. One way to create a statistical ALL is to eliminate everyone who disagrees. Bill used the phrase “geologists on the outside.” He was trying to make Creation seem isolated to Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. He was trying to eliminate all the scientists who disagree with his claim because they observe sediments turning to stone quickly. However, few Americans believe in pure naturalism or atheism, so that’s a logical fallacy of misused statistics. Bill was committing a statistical fallacy so he could commit a bandwagon fallacy. How could a majority opinion affect reality? God doesn’t often work with the majority.

. . . study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas . . .

Bill committed the statistical fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation. He extrapolated the current rates back into supposed billions of years. When he has extended the numbers so far back this way, he uses this same unwarranted extrapolation to prove his original presupposition. His original presupposition is “there was no Genesis Flood.” That’s question-begging, also known as circular reasoning.

Mistaking-Interpretation-for-Observation Fallacy

Making observations while subconsciously interpreting them and thinking the interpretations are observations

Example:

. . . what you can observe in nature, what you can find, literally, in your back yard in Kentucky. ~ Bill Nye

Bill talked about what you can observe in nature. In that context, he claimed you could the Genesis Flood never taking place and the Creation event never happening. He implied you could observe a big bang origin. He suggested you could observe life coming from non-life and molecules-to-humanity evolution. He hinted you could observe billions of years passing on earth.

However, we can’t observe any of these since they are concepts. We can’t observe concepts. Bill bases these concepts on interpretations, and he bases those interpretations on assumptions that come out of his worldview. He gets confirmation bias from the fact that his own worldview coincides with the worldviews of the people in his peer group. Also, he has many other methods by which he makes his interpretations seem as if they were observations.

When mistaking interpretation for observation, observers can’t tell the difference between observation and fantasy. Interpretation is fantasy. The observers substitute interpretation for observation. When the observation conflicts with the observers’ worldviews or expectations, the observers filter the observation through their worldviews to fit their expectations.

Mistaking-Substance-for-Concept Fallacy

(a.k.a. Attributing Abstractness to the Concrete, Mistaking an Entity for a Theory, Anti-Concreteness Mentality, or Mistaking Reality for an Assumption)

Treating something real as if it were something unreal

A persuader who commits this fallacy thinks reality (what has substance) is a concept, theory, or abstraction.

Examples:

• Ungodly thinkers often call the person of Jesus Christ a “religion.”
• Ungodly thinkers sometimes think faith is a concept or a mental state instead of what it is. Faith is the substance (reality as opposed to concept) of things for which God has given us a vision of hope. Faith is the evidence (absolute proof and certainty) of things we can’t see with our natural eyes but that He has revealed to us.

Modal Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Modal Logic, misconditionalization, fallacy of necessity, or Modal-Scope Fallacy)

Deception regarding necessity or possibility

Implying unwarranted necessity or possibility

Examples:

If I, being an atheist, can make a true statement, that necessarily proves atheists can manufacture truth without the benefit of either divine revelation or observation. I can make the statement, “Either God exists or He doesn’t.” This statement is true because of its form. Therefore, I have necessarily stated a truth, and I’m an atheist. Therefore, atheists necessarily can manufacture truth without either divine revelation or observation.

I can also make the statement, “boys will be boys.” This statement is true because of its form. Therefore, I have necessarily stated a truth, and I’m an atheist. Therefore, atheists necessarily can manufacture truth without either divine revelation or observation.

Types of Modal Fallacies:

• Alethic-modality fallacies confuse possibility with necessity or impossibility with contingency.
• Temporal-modality fallacies try to draw conclusions about one period (present, past, or future) based on premises from another period (present, past, or future).
• Deontic-modality fallacies confuse obligation with permissibility.
• Epistemic-modality fallacies confuse what is known with what is believed.

Monopolizing-the-Conversation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Filibustering or Dominating the Conversation)

An action like a prolonged speech that obstructs resolving an issue

Promoting a conclusion by blocking, restricting, censoring, or burying any conflicting information

The attempt of one person or group of persons to eliminate opinions with which they disagree by talking non-stop or interrupting constantly

The fallacy of monopolizing the conversation is a method of message control for propaganda, and we see it when we see a few people controlling all forms of communication: education, news, entertainment, and everything else. We see it in social media as trolling and spamming. We see it when social media platforms secretly restrict postings or when they openly close accounts of those who say things with which they disagree. We see it when several people are discussing and issue, and one person begins to talk over the others to make it impossible to hear whatever those other people say. One person may keep the others from talking. Filibuster is also a way to use time constraints to one’s advantage.

Monopolizing-the-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Hypophora, Antipophora, or Anthypophora)

Asking a question and then immediately providing an unproven answer

Example:

How do I know evolution took place? Scientific evidence!

The term “scientific evidence” implies proof by observation, but all evolutionists have is strong opinion and a will to force their own opinion onto others. Persuaders who commit monopolizing-the-question fallacies ask a question then answer the question, giving the illusion of an open conversation with the audience. They get attention but also imply authority. This technique is only a fallacy if they don’t prove the answer but state the answer confidently as if they had proved it. In our example, the so-called “evidence” is phantom evidence. The word “evidence” is a magic-word fallacy. Persuaders usually continue with other thoughts so the audience doesn’t challenge the deception. Then, they base further reasoning on the unproven answer.

Monopolizing the question isn’t necessarily a fallacy since it doesn’t necessarily deceive. It’s a presentation technique. If the persuader gives an answer that’s an unsupported assertion or untrue, then the persuader is using this fallacy as a smokescreen to hide the unsupported assumption or lie.

Moralistic Fallacy

(a.k.a. Moral Fallacy or Moralism)

A belief that humans can determine what’s moral and be moral

Believing that morals or ethics can exist without the Creator God of the universe

To assume a priori that morality is naturally occurring

Without divine revelation, morality becomes a matter of personal opinion, and righteousness is impossible without God’s power both to will and to do His good pleasure.

God reveals right and wrong to every person, yet we sometimes reach into our worldviews for morality. We make up assumptions about what ought to be moral. Some influencers work hard to persuade us to change our personal beliefs about right and wrong. They use the natural tendency of the human mind to stray toward sin and defend sin. If we defend our sin, we sear our consciences and become callused against God and His righteousness.

When you say there’s too much evil in this world you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that’s Who you’re trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral Law Giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. What is your question? ~ Ravi Zacharias

Persuaders raise questions about specific sins, especially sexual sins. They get the government to encourage the sin and to punish anyone who mentions the fact that God doesn’t condone the sin. Influencers may identify the one sinning with the sin. They apply a label to the one who is sinning. It makes it as though this person consisted of this sin. Sometimes they say the person was just born this way or the sin is part of the person’s identity.

Well, we’re all born in sin and shaped in iniquity. That’s true. However, Christ came to set us free from the slavery that kept us bound to our sins. In these cases, persuaders use moralism to make it seem wrong to say sin is sin and to make it seem good to keep sinning.

The question comes up something like this, “Is homosexuality wrong?” Or we could be questioning heterosexual sin, a compulsion to steal, or a compulsion to kill. There are no holy sins. Ravi Zacharias says, “Before we answer that question, we need to ask whether anything can be wrong.” When we consider Ravi’s question, we begin to understand the problem with moralism.

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: Christians are evil. They always do bad things.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What objective standard are you appealing to when you call anything “evil” or “bad?”

Sandy: God is a monster. Just look at the terrible things He does.

Rocky: What objective standard are you appealing to when you call God a “monster?”

Moralism is a seductive false gospel since it teaches a morality apart from God, but we can’t blame the secularists since, in part, moralism came from Christians who forgot what the Gospel was. The Letter of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians deals with this issue, and others have written about it.

The Christian doesn’t believe God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us. ~ C. S. Lewis

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

Whatever isn’t of faith is sin. ^{(Romans 14:23)} God does His true works of righteousness through us by His grace. We can only access grace through faith. Faith comes when we hear His utterance, which is His leading.

Related:

ought-is fallacy

Morton’s-Fork Fallacy

Using different (conflicting) observations to come to the same conclusion

No matter what’s observed or experienced, everything always proves the same thing.

Example:

It doesn’t matter what evolutionists observe; they’ll always interpret the observation to prove evolutionism. The same goes for statism, a billions-of-years-old earth, and global climate disaster.

Motivated-Reasoning Fallacy

Being more skeptical about things outside one’s own worldview and less skeptical about things inside one’s own worldview

Examples:

• Evolutionists defend the big bang story and the molecules-to-humanity story despite the fact these stories violate several laws of science. Evolutionists also use motivated reasoning to claim the big bang story and the molecules-to-humanity story don’t violate those laws of science. And yet, they refuse to even consider God’s version of how He created the universe and everything in the universe.
• Some Christians defend sex outside marriage and creatively interpret the Bible to do so.
• Influencers defend agnosticism as a philosophy despite God revealing Himself to every person. Every person who claims ignorance does indeed know God exists. As God says, they are without excuse.

We scrutinize and reject things that conflict with our preconceived ideas. We engage in emotion-driven and selective skepticism. We confirm our bias by filtering all our experiences through our worldviews. The Holy Spirit is here to guide us out of motivated reasoning and into all truth.

Moving-the-Goalposts Fallacy

(a.k.a. Raising the Bar)

Repeatedly changing the criteria for acceptable proof or falsification

Influencers move the goalposts to rescue the sacred cow, but the sacred cow never changes. Although they adjust the fluff around the sacred cow to move the goalposts, they protect the sacred cow from all examination.

Example:

Evolutionists set criteria in place for the falsification of evolutionism. However, they keep changing those criteria as new discoveries falsify the story. When a discovery falsifies the theory, evolutionists rescue the theory by making up just-so stories that become more elaborate and contrived over time. Then evolutionists set up new falsification criteria, hoping against the next discovery. Therefore, no discovery will ever falsify the stories of evolutionism since evolutionists use this tactic.

Here’s a common excuse to defend this practice of moving the goalposts:

That’s how science works. When we discover something new, we change.

This persuader is lying. Nothing can challenge or falsify the central story of evolutionism. The central story is creation without God. We can’t falsify that central story since evolutionists can make up endless just-so stories to rescue the sacred-cow story. That way, the evidence always lies in the unknown.

That’s because evolutionists think the stories of evolutionism are absolute fact. They’re so dogmatic they react irrationally when anyone points out the problems with evolutionism. As an additional result of this dogmatism, when problems come up, evolutionists don’t confess and repent, but rather, they change a few details or add a few stories. The following appeared in CreationWiki:

But this doesn’t stop the evolutionist from believing. This doesn’t falsify his theory, even though it falsifies the prediction it makes. And even if it appears to, there is an explanation just ready, whether faith in science’s future discoveries or excuses and ad hoc hypotheses. So to summarize:

• Prediction: gradualism and change (Darwin), the fossil record is supposed to show this as a family tree.
• Actual/Observed: Abrupt appearance and stasis, gaps between kinds of creatures.
• Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: punctuated equilibrium (Gould, Eldridge), the imperfect fossil record (Charles Darwin, ibid chapter 14), the claim that there are multitudes.

A brief, but far from exhaustive, summary of some other attempts at falsification that get bounced away by ad hoc hypotheses and excuses:

• Prediction: natural selection and mutation must be able to add new or novel genetic information enough to change one kind (family or genera) of organism into another.
• Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful, some are neutral, and the rest, though beneficial, do not add new genetic information but may even leave the animal weaker.
• Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: still claim mutation and natural selection are sufficient for evolution or doubt the power of either while still holding on to the “fact” that evolution happened.
• Prediction: every organ or organism can be shown to have evolutionary development (Charles Darwin, Chapter 6 The Origin of Species)
• Actual: evidence of specified and irreducible complexity (Michael Behe)
• Ad hoc hypothesis/excuse: imaginative drawings (from the mind of men, not any direct evidence) of how such irreducibly complex organism may have evolved, “explanations of gene duplication and co-optation to build these complex structures.”

So there have been many attempts the falsify the theory, but it remains intact even in the face of the insufficiency of its predictions and promises. This just enforces the reason why creationists and others see the theory of evolution as unfalsifiable. ~ Talk Origins

Evolutionists will continue to adapt their story (move the goalposts) if human imagination can dream up stories, which is forever. For example, even when scientists found dinosaur soft tissue and DNA in fossils they thought were millions of years old, other scientists resisted the discovery. Scientists denied the existence of this soft tissue until they couldn’t deny it any longer. Finally, they made up a just-so story about imaginary ways to preserve soft tissue for millions of years, and they accept those stories even though the stories are farfetched.

Multiple-Comparisons Fallacy

Believing a certain cause is responsible for an effect when more than one cause is possible

The multiple-comparisons fallacy is connected with statistical analysis that shows a relationship between a possible cause and an effect. For instance, a group of people all gets sick, and they all drink from the same well. The problem comes up when more than one factor could have caused the effect. Also, another cause could exist. Just because we don’t know about a cause doesn’t mean the cause doesn’t exist.

Multiple-Question Fallacy

(a.k.a. Plurium Interrogationum, Fallacy of Many Questions, or Surfeit of Questions)

Asking questions that require complex answers to create a false impression

Examples:

We must then ask ourselves, how dinosaur soft tissue and blood survived for millions of years.

This question sounds like a single question, but it’s really three claims. It presupposes millions of years when there’s no real proof to support millions of years. Since it contains this presupposition, it brings up three questions rather than one.

• Are dinosaur soft tissue and blood really millions of years old?
• Did dinosaur soft tissue and blood survive for millions of years?
• If so, how could they have possibly survived?

If we can’t prove the first two questions in the affirmative, the third question is irrational.

Why don’t Christians believe in science?

This question presupposes Christians don’t believe in science, so we recognize this persuader is asking two questions. One of the questions is presupposed. The persuaders hope we just accept the claim. They hope we believe Christians don’t believe in science. This forces us to re-state the tricky multiple question as two questions:

Do Christians believe in science?

If they don’t, why not?

On average, Christians understand science better than unbelievers, yet it’s common for ungodly persuaders to imply Christians don’t understand science. The conflict between ungodly science and godly science is rarely scientific observation. Rather the conflict springs from the basis of reason, the starting point for thinking. Atheists base atheism on assumptions as a starting point for reason. Evolutionists base evolutionism on assumptions as a starting point for reason. Those who believe in billions of years base old-earth dogmatism on assumptions as a starting point for reason. They have an alternative. They could begin all reasoning with revelation. They could have a growing, moment-by-moment experience with Christ leading, teaching, and correcting them.

How can anyone be so stupid as to believe the Bible?

This question presupposes “it’s stupid to believe the Bible” when it’s actually stupid to fail to believe the Bible. What do we do? We say, “The question is actually two questions.” Here are the two questions:

Is it stupid to believe the Bible?

If so, how could anyone be so stupid as to believe the Bible?

Since it makes sense to believe the Bible and it doesn’t make sense to disbelieve the Bible, the second question is irrational.

Why is evolution so critical to biology?

This question presupposes evolution is critical to biology when it’s not. The two questions are:

Is evolution critical to biology?

If so, why?

With the multiple-question fallacy, a persuader asks a single question requiring more than one answer and demands a single simple answer. The persuader may also pose the question or problem in a way that steers the conclusion. The persuader asking the question often seeks a solution or answer without first correctly defining the problem or question.

The multiple-question fallacy isn’t the same as the elephant hurl. In the elephant hurl, persuaders ask a volume of questions or make a volume of statements. The questions may also contain multiple-question fallacies since the object is to confuse the issue and win the debate by trickery. In this debate persuasion technique, it’s common to craft questions so each question (or statement) would take an hour of discussion. Since the other person doesn’t have time to answer fully, the persuader who uses this fallacy can confuse the audience.

Murder Mistake

(a.k.a. Hate Fallacy, Malice Fallacy, or Retribution Fallacy)

Thought, word, or deed targeted at hurting another person

Detail:

While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds. The term “murder” applies to all thought, word, or activity not fitting God’s pattern of love. It goes beyond physically killing a person, so it covers all forms of hurt.

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer. ~ 1 John 3:15

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ [“Raca” is a term of disrespect.] will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell. ~ Matthew 5:21-22 Berean Study Bible

Murderers grab God’s authority to punish evil. They don’t trust God to judge righteously, and they think they have better judgment than God does. Of course, other motives trigger murder. Murder perverts God’s good design for life.

The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ~ Galatians 5:14 Berean Study Bible

Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. The commandments “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and any other commandments, are summed up in this one decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law. ~ Romans 13:8-9 Berean Study Bible

Regardless of whether the sin is in thought, word, or deed, sin fails to deal with reality as it is. Those who sin don’t realize God provides what we need. He delivers absolute justice. They don’t understand the value of human life. However, if we don’t believe God, we may resort to murder and malice. We may feel frustrated watching the wicked prosper. We may lose patience. We may hold anger and fail to forgive. We may try to retaliate if we don’t leave vengeance with God.

Nominalization Fallacy

(a.k.a. Name Calling, Labeling, or Misnomer)

Applying a faulty label

Examples:

The overwhelming majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid physical evidence like carbon dating and fossil to support evolutionary theory. ~ A question from the audience to Ken Ham in the Nye-Ham Debate

The questioner wrongly labeled evolutionism as a “theory.” By using the word “theory,” the questioner implies the stories of evolutionism are a scientific theory. We can’t rationally call a hypothesis a theory when it violates scientific laws in the way the molecules-to-humanity story does. Since the story violates so many laws of science and needs many just-so stories to rescue the sacred-cow story, the story of evolutionism isn’t even a scientific hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.

The questioner uses the false label “evidence” since it implies observed proof. What the questioner calls “evidence” consists of interpretations of observations, and evolutionists based those interpretations on assumptions and confirmation bias.

I’m a homosexual, though I’m presently not sexually active.

This persuader turned an adjective into a noun since he did a certain action at one time, but now he labels himself as the action. Actions do have their effects on our beings, especially sexual actions. However, this person labels himself as being his action. The result is it’s more difficult for the person who labels himself in this way to change the behavior let alone changing his inner emotions and desires. His worldview deceived him, and his behavior has become part of his being in his mind. The same would apply to the following labels:

I’m an idiot!

You are a dunce!

You’re a witch!

I’m worthless!

I’m a good person. [This one calls God a liar by labeling self as good.]

All of these enforce bondage to a destructive self-image, which, in turn, impacts future behavior.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Gay people hear stuff like this all the time, every day. We are used to it but it makes us hate our existence. It’s like we can’t exist without someone telling us we shouldn’t. It adds up, and it’s frustrating. We are normal people that work and have families like everyone else. We just want to live our lives like everyone else. No one chooses to be gay. It’s very difficult for us and our families, especially in the earlier years. I hated myself growing up and prayed it would go away. Any gay person will tell you a similar story. I hope we can understand and grow from our discussion.

Rocky Rockbuilder: First, let me assure you. You matter to God. We humans can’t understand what Christ’s sacrifice cost God, and that unfathomable price gives us a small window into God’s love and care for each of us. And yet, because of the nature of true love, God never forces Himself on any of us just as a man who loves a woman doesn’t force himself on her. You mentioned praying. I don’t know whether you ever had a real relationship with Christ in which He led, guided, and corrected you moment by moment. Perhaps you have that relationship now. I hope that you do. I actually understand your frustration since I’m a human being who was born into sin just as you are. I wasn’t tempted into homosexual acts, but I have other areas of weakness. I didn’t choose those areas of weakness. I have hated them, and I still hate the ones that Christ hasn’t overcome in me. I mention this to you just in case you do know Jesus Christ. This is a very deep subject, and few will do anything other than dance around the surface of it. I’m telling you about the gift from Christ, which is to pardon us and then set us on a path toward holiness. If we follow that path, He’ll set us free from every form of sin. I’ll pray for you. Pray for me since I have a fleshly nature that must change to be like Christ’s nature.

Sandy: God made gay people and we exist. It never just goes away. We also have the same desires as everyone else: companionship and family. I hope you can empathize with that.

Rocky: One thing I notice is you nominalize behaviors. One way to make behavior permanent is to say we are the behavior. If you truly want Christ and His righteousness, nothing can keep it from you. Every person who seeks Him in sincerity finds Him. He can pardon your sin of course. He can also free you from your sinful nature. If you want to be free, you can be free. You don’t have to continue in sin.

Same-sex sexual sin isn’t any more of an inborn trait than heterosexual sin. It’s not special at all. God condemns both of these forms of sin just as He condemns failure to acknowledge and thank Him, disrespect toward parents, self-righteousness, stealing, murder, lying about other people, covetousness, or envy.

Every person is born a sinner. No one can help that, but God provided a Way of salvation. He gave us a Way to be set free from sin. That Way is Jesus Christ. If we rationalize our sinful behavior, we fail to repent of it and remain in our sins.

One of the worst ways to rationalize sinful behavior is to use nominalization. When Sandy calls himself “gay,” he nominalizes his behavior, and then he plays the victim card. In his mind, he tries to convert his actions into his identity.

Ungodly thinkers do the same thing when they name themselves “atheists” or “agnostics.” Then, they claim their identity is being an atheist, and they’re very offended when someone points out the fact they know God exists. They say something like, “I’m offended since you’ve attacked my identity by telling me that I already know God exists.”

Persuaders may apply a label that’s either positive or negative. They may apply it to a person, organization, concept, place, or thing. False labels hide axiomatic-thinking fallacies. And labels are powerful. That’s because they change the attitudes of those people whom the persuaders label. Labels change the attitudes of those who hear or see the persuader applying the label. For those who have tangled themselves in sin, labels put a layer of duct tape over the tangles.

God puts labels on things without committing this fallacy. What God calls you is what you are. When someone calls you a name and that name takes your hope away, ask God what He calls you.

Naturalism-of-the-Gaps Fallacy

Crediting an observation or experience to naturalism without proving God isn’t in control of all things

Claiming that naturalism is the default position

Claiming we must credit an observation or experience to naturalism if anyone can explain it by making up a naturalistic story

Persuaders commit the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy whenever they invoke naturalism to explain anything in creation. Persuaders who commit the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy use the same logical form as persuaders who commit the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. They use the same logic as persuaders who commit the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy.

In all these cases, persuaders claim a default position without knowing a rational way to explain why the position is the default. It’s called “naturalism of the gaps” since wherever naturalists can’t prove knowledge using their five senses, they insert naturalism as the cause, reason, or solution. It’s a golden-hammer fallacy in which naturalism becomes the golden hammer they use to solve every problem. The logic follows the form: “I don’t know what caused this; therefore a natural cause must exist. God didn’t cause it, and there’s no spiritual reason for it.”

A Christian twist in the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy turns the logic around. It says, “If I can think of a naturalistic explanation for something, then God didn’t do it.” That way, if God answers any prayer, they can find a way to avoid giving God the glory simply by attributing the blessing to something other than God. They attribute the blessing to the god they worship. That god may be natural causes. It may be their intellects. It may be a person they worship. It may be an idea like democracy, rock and roll, a certain theology, or something else.

The truly interesting part of this fallacy is, when naturalism deceives persuaders, they can’t know whether any premise is true. Therefore, naturalism removes the possibility of rational thought.

Persuaders tell just-so stories to explain away observed laws of nature that naturalism violates. They try to explain effects without causes. Also, persuaders rest their entire case for naturalism on axiomatic-thinking fallacies.

Naturalistic Fallacy

Drawing evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises

We commit the naturalistic fallacy if we define a non-natural property like “goodness” or “happiness” by comparing it to natural properties. Without divine revelation, humans can’t know about God, morals, ethics, right, wrong, or history. These are examples of thoughts that go beyond immediate observations. Ungodly thinkers can have opinions about things beyond their sensory experiences. They can be emotional about those opinions, but emotion is empty.

To every person, God reveals things that go beyond sense experience, but some people ignore revelation or use the revelation but refuse to acknowledge that it came from God. They try to use the natural brute-beast mind to understand what they can’t sense in the present with their natural senses. That’s the essence of the naturalistic fallacy.

Ungodly thinkers can’t evaluate spiritual matters. They can’t rationally conclude anything about spiritual matters.

Examples:

The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14 Berean Study Bible

They speak evil of whatever they can’t sense with their natural senses or whatever they don’t know by their instincts.

But these indeed speak evil of whatever things they have not seen; and whatever things they understand naturally, as the irrational animals, in these things they corrupt themselves. ~ Jude 1:10 Berean Literal Bible

Other Definitions of this Fallacy:

Different ungodly thinkers define the naturalistic fallacy in different ways. Some say we commit the naturalistic fallacy if we define one property, like “goodness” or “happiness” by comparing it to other properties. Others say we commit the naturalistic fallacy if we try to define an indefinable property. For instance, they assume goodness is indefinable since we can’t know it by the physical human senses. And the human mind can’t reason to goodness. Of course, they begin by assuming the non-existence of God Who can teach us about things like goodness.

If naturalists want to rationally use the term, “undefinable property” they should prove certain properties are undefinable. If a naturalist were to say no one could define a certain property like goodness, that naturalist would be committing the logical fallacy of declaring a universal negative. The naturalist would be claiming no one, not even God, could define it. They would be claiming God couldn’t reveal the definition to anyone. That claim would be irrational.

Persuaders may use logic like this: “Whatever I personally don’t understand isn’t real. I don’t understand this. Therefore, it’s not real.”

Alternately, they may use this form of logic: “Whatever I don’t know can’t be known. I don’t know about this. Therefore, it can’t be known.”

1903. E. Moore wrote the book “Principia Ethica” in 1903. In that book, Moore claimed we commit a naturalistic fallacy whenever we compare the word, “good” to one or more properties like “pleasant,” “more evolved,” or “desired.” Moore called these “natural” properties.

Is Moore right to say we commit a fallacy if we do that? On what basis? Can he prove his claim without any hidden assumptions? He may begin with the ungodly paradigm as a presupposition since ungodly thinking can’t comment on “goodness” rationally. Naturalists must fit “goodness” or “happiness” into their materialistic paradigm where they say only energy and matter exist.

Other people define the naturalistic fallacy as thinking two words are synonyms because someone uses them to define the same object. Those who hold this view focus on “good” as a word fallacy-committers use to define this object. Of course, two words aren’t synonyms just because we use them to define the same object.

Some people define the naturalistic fallacy as trying to draw ethical conclusions from observations in the material realm. Some people define the naturalistic fallacy as saying what’s good or right is natural or inherent.

We’ve gone through several definitions of the naturalistic fallacy. the naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought problem have a lot in common. Some people think the naturalistic fallacy is the is-ought fallacy.

Without divine revelation, we would commit a fallacy if we make any claim about morality or ethics. The same holds for truth, theology, or biblical study. It’s also true for the beginning of matter, the beginning of energy, the beginning of time, the beginning of life, and the way all living organisms came to be. We can’t know anything about ethics or morality except by divine revelation. We can’t know anything beyond what we can observe and test except by divine revelation.

Agrippa’s trilemma makes all knowledge on any subject impossible unless God gives us knowledge by divine revelation. This is the problem of the brute-beast mind that can only react to its immediate sensory experience but can’t rationally reason beyond that immediate sensory experience. That’s because a chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. This chain must begin with something absolute, but ungodly thinkers only have bare claims and smokescreen fallacies.

Related:

is-ought fallacy and moralistic fallacy

Naturalistic-Paradigm Fallacy

(a.k.a. Naturalism)

Basing a conclusion on an imaginary worldview in which there’s no spiritual realm

The naturalistic paradigm claims a universal negative that excludes the following:

• God
• Angels
• demons/gods
• human spirits
• human souls/minds
• heaven
• hell
• divine revelation
• miracles
• the moment-by-moment leading of the Holy Spirit
• the gifts of the Spirit
• the operation of God through His people
• the daily experience of every person who is following Christ

“Naturalism” is a doctrine of ungodliness. Many ungodly universities teach naturalism as fact. Sadly, even some Christians believe in some parts of naturalism since they’ve learned from ungodly counselors.

Some reasons naturalism is a fallacy:

• Naturalism is a bare claim since there’s no proof for it. It’s an axiomatic-thinking fallacy.
• Naturalism is a fallacy of amazing familiarity. It claims to be familiar with the spiritual experiences of every person who’s ever lived. It claims to know everything about what we can’t observe with natural senses.
• Naturalism is usually justified by using an argument-from-ignorance fallacy.
• Naturalism is untrue. Jesus Christ leads every person who follows Him.
• Naturalism depends on at least two assumptions, and it’s a fallacy to base conclusions on assumptions:
  • Assumption #1: Physical nature or the material world is all that exists.
  • Assumption #2: The mind is the brain.
• Naturalism is self-refuting. If naturalism were a fact, the workings of inanimate nature would produce the naturalist’s belief in naturalism. That would mean the naturalist’s brain chemistry made the naturalist believe in naturalism. In that case, belief in naturalism would be a chemical reaction and nothing more.

Necessity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Felacia Necassitas)

Indicating necessity in the conclusion of a syllogism while not indicating this same necessity in both premises

Examples:

Christ necessarily leads a person who follows Him. John seems to be a person who follows Christ. Therefore, Christ is necessarily leading John.

Christ doesn’t necessarily lead John unless John is necessarily a person who follows Christ. And yet this logic says John seems to be a person who follows Christ. When people make this mistake, they generally don’t state it without smokescreen fallacies. For instance, they’ll only imply Christ necessarily leads every person who follows Him. Christ does lead every person who follows Him, but the person might say, “If Christ leads everyone who follows Him, and John is a Christian, then why did John use foul language just now?”

Faith necessarily comes by hearing God in submission to Him and reverence toward Him. Jim thinks he hears God’s voice. Therefore, faith necessarily comes to Jim.

Faith doesn’t necessarily come to Jim just because Jim thinks he hears God’s Voice. Jim must wait until he hears God’s Voice. Even then, we walk from faith to faith and from glory to glory. We walk into ever-increasing discernment as we seek Christ in submission to His righteousness. All who seek Christ in sincerity do find Christ. However, Satan and the culture can deceive us. Our own fleshly desires can deceive us. And yet, God knows our heart. He knows whether we truly want to do His will. If we sincerely desire His righteousness, we will be satisfied. Though we may make many mistakes, He’ll finish the work He began in us.

Needling Fallacy

(a.k.a. Baiting)

Trying to irritate another person or make the person angry rather than dealing with the issues under discussion

Example:

Rocky Rockbuilder: Christians aren’t necessarily persecuted, but those who desire to live godly lives will suffer for it. “Indeed, all who desire to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” (2 Timothy 3:12) That persecution is sometimes ridicule and disrespect, but it’s often much worse. This principle holds in America and every country.

Sandy Sandbuilder: Adults with imaginary friends should seek therapy.

Rocky: Case in point. Thank you for the illustration.

If the person who’s the subject of needling becomes angry, leaves the conversation, or otherwise reacts to the needling, then the person who’s doing the needling claims victory. That doesn’t mean we should never leave any conversations. Sometimes, the Holy Spirit tells us to leave a conversation.

However, persuaders can use needling to intimidate us and try to get us to conform. At other times, persuaders who needle us think they’re right if they’re the most irritating.

Unfortunately, TV teaches us those who are correct or cool can show how correct or cool they are by treating other people badly. Movies and fictional stories do the same. They present scenarios that don’t work in the real world.

Related:

trolling

Negating-Antecedent-and-Consequent Fallacy

(a.k.a. Improper Transposition)

Transposing the antecedent and consequent in the conclusion and reversing the negation in propositional logic

Invalid Forms:

If A then B. Therefore, if not-A then not-B.

If not-A then not-B. Therefore, if A then B.

If we substitute words for A and B, this logic may sometimes seem to make sense. This form of logic can easily deceive us. We can’t rely on the invalid form to draw true conclusions even if the premises are true.

If you’re swimming, you’re wet. Therefore, if you’re not swimming, you’re not wet.

If you’re not wet, you’re not swimming. Therefore, if you’re wet, you’re swimming.

This logical form isn’t reliable. It can’t lead us to know any truth even if the premises are true.

Negative-Premise Fallacy

(a.k.a. Illicit Negative, Drawing a Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises, or Drawing-an-Affirmative-Conclusion-from-Negative-Premises Fallacy)

Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a categorical syllogism in which one or more of the premises is negative

Invalid Forms:

X isn’t Y. Y is Z. Therefore, X is Z.

X isn’t Y. Y isn’t Z. Therefore, X is Z.

Examples:

Humans aren’t inanimate objects. Inanimate objects aren’t concepts. Therefore, humans are concepts.

Humans aren’t inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are lifeless. Therefore, humans are lifeless.

Nesting Fallacies

Using more than one fallacy within a single piece of reasoning

Examples:

There’s a reason that I don’t accept your—the Ken Ham model of Creation is that it has no predictive quality as you touched on. ~ Bill Nye

This short sentence has several nested fallacies.

Ken Ham model of Creation

• There’s no such model. That’s the nominalization fallacy.
• Bill is trying to divert attention away from the issue. That’s the red-herring fallacy.
• Bill is trying to bring attention to Ken Ham. That’s the ad-hominem fallacy.

. . . it has no predictive quality.

• However, the Creation model predicts much better than the model of the ungodly thinkers, so Bill’s claim is false.
• Ken already refuted Bill’s point. That’s the proof-by-repeated-assertion-fallacy-and-double-down fallacy.

. . . as you touched on.

• Bill presupposed Ken Ham has “touched on” Bill’s false assertion that the Creation model can’t predict. However, Ken Ham repeatedly had shown many predictions of the Creation model. That’s a false-attribution fallacy and assertion-contrary-to-fact fallacy.
• It was also just one more time Bill ignored the examples of predictions Ken had given. That’s an unacknowledged-refutation fallacy.

Persuaders can nest or stack up fallacies, resulting in more confusion through information overload. Nested fallacies fool a greater percentage of people than do isolated fallacies.

NIGY-Fallacy

(a.k.a. Now I’ve Got You or Witch Hunt)

Asking one question after another, trying to turn up some piece of information to use as a weapon

Examples:

I haven’t stated my position. I’m asking you to defend your position.

Atheism isn’t a belief or a position. It’s just the lack of belief. You must prove your claim that God exists.

Persuaders who commit NIGY fallacies close their minds. They use this debate tactic to win debates rather than to find the truth. An open-minded person freely discusses both the strengths and the weaknesses of his or her own position. However, persuaders who commit NIGY refuse to answer questions.

Nobody’s-Perfect Fallacy

Justifying bad behaviors or attitudes by claiming that perfection is impossible

Examples:

OK, so I brought home some office supplies from work. It’s not like I embezzled a million dollars; besides, nobody’s perfect.

I’ve taken advantage of a few girls and taken them to bed. Nobody’s perfect.

If Jesus died to forgive our sins, why not sin? God will forgive those sins anyway. What’s the difference? Nobody’s perfect.”

It’s true. There’s not a just person on earth who only does good without sinning, but God has a plan to change all that. Christ died to pay the price for our sins, and He does pardon us, but He also died to set us free from our sinful natures. When we yield to our sinful natures, we come into greater bondage to them in the worst form of slavery. However, when we yield to the Holy Spirit and His righteousness, we come into greater freedom from bondage. Depending on which we choose, either bondage or freedom is progressive. Redemption refers to setting a slave free.

Normalization Fallacy

Changing society by making perverted behavior feel normal

Examples:

• The Kinsey Report deceived millions of people by using falsified “research” on sexual behavior. Ungodly thinkers then claimed this perversion was normal. However, they couldn’t make the changes until many average people accepted the perversions as the new normal. Beginning with what they titled “free love,” ungodly persuaders pushed for sex outside of marriage. As society begins accepting one perversion, the persuaders begin selling the next perversion.
• News programs and entertainment media show violence as if people are always violent. Entertainers suggest that it’s normal to take violent actions against anyone with whom they disagree. Eventually, some people accept violence as the new normal. Some become violent and commit mass murders.

We’ve witnessed wide-scale normalization since the 1960s. Behaviors were illegal. Then, they’re suddenly legal. Then, they’re encouraged. Then, it’s illegal to call perversion “perversion.” What follows are some steps persuaders typically use for normalization. This is how evil minds normalize sexual perversion. Evil minds seek to normalize every abomination.

• They use pornography, magazines, the Internet, news media, schools, and entertainment to get the message out. They publish pictures and videos.
• They take many fake surveys to create a bandwagon effect. Fake news media outlets publish the fake survey results.
• High-profile people do the acts. Some get caught. They get the message out. When the high-profile people escape all punishment, it normalizes the perversion.
• They start bringing false accusations. They accuse innocent people of the perversion to normalize the perversion.
• They then define the perversion so broadly that it applies to almost everyone.
• They say everyone is doing it.
• Psychiatrists declare the perversion a “disability.”
• Psychiatrists and many communicators then say we have to be compassionate toward those who commit these perversions. They say it’s a “disability.”
• They then condemn those who aren’t compassionate enough. They label them as “bigots.”
• Psychiatrists declare the perversion “normal” and those who condemn the perversion as “mentally impaired.”
• They declare the perversion politically correct. They declare anyone who discourages the perversion politically incorrect.
• They put those who commit the perversion into a protected class and take coercive action against anyone who condemns the perversion.
• Public schools teach children the perversion at the earliest possible age.
• As all this is happening with one perversion, the persuaders are normalizing the next perversion.

Non-Sequitur Fallacy

(a.k.a. Inductive Fallacy)

An error in reasoning in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

An error in reasoning in which the premise doesn’t prove the conclusion

An error in reasoning in which a conclusion has information not in the premises

The conclusion can’t contain any information not in the premises. All formal fallacies are non sequiturs.

Examples:

Major Premise: 1+1=2. Minor Premise: I have one dollar and another dollar. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s as plain as simple math that the stories of evolutionism are true.

That conclusion adds information not found in the premises, so the conclusion is a non sequitur. On the other hand, a different conclusion, “Therefore, I have two dollars,” follows from the premises and wouldn’t be a non sequitur.

Major Premise: We observe changes in living organisms from one generation to another. Minor Premise: We can sort fossils according to similarity. Conclusion: Therefore, one-celled living organisms evolved into ever-more-complex living organisms until humanity evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Though more subtle than our first example, the conclusion is a non sequitur. The conclusion contains more information than the premises contain.

No-True-Scientist Fallacy

Placing artificial limits on what will fit the label “scientist”

Example:

No true scientist endorses the biblical account of Creation.

No true scientist doubts the stories of evolutionism.

No true scientist is without dogmatic belief in global climate disaster.

Real scientists agree that abiogenesis happened.

The scientific consensus on the age of the earth is the earth 4.7 billion years.

Creation.com doesn’t hire true scientists.

The no-true-scientist fallacy is a targeted application of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. The no-true-Scotsman fallacy is a specific application of the stacking-the-deck fallacy that uses a persuasive-definition fallacy.

A persuader selects a subset of all scientists. The persuader adds a trait of those selected scientists to the definition of the word “scientists.” This way the persuader artificially filters out scientists without the given attribute.

Evolutionists, naturalists, and climate change alarmists tend to commit this fallacy, but anyone could use it. An evolutionist would add belief in evolutionism to the definition of “scientist.” A naturalist would add the belief in naturalism to the definition of “science” and then use that persuasive definition to redefine “scientist.” A climate change alarmist would add climate change belief to the definition of “scientist.” Though we don’t see this, a Christian could add a Christian belief system to the definition of “scientist.” Anyone could commit this fallacy.

Persuaders often use this fallacy to create the illusion of scientific consensus for either evolutionism or climate change. Then persuaders use the false claim of consensus to commit many other fallacies.

Related:

marginalizing fallacies, bandwagon fallacies, appeal-to-fear fallacies, and message-control fallacies.

No-True-Scotsman Fallacy

A persuasive-definition fallacy used to place artificial limits on what’s defined by a certain label

In the famous story from tektonics, Macgregor and McDougal are drinking tea. Macgregor notices McDougal takes his tea with cream.

Macgregor: No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream!

McDougal: I drink my tea with cream!

Macgregor: As I said, no TRUE Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.

Persuaders who commit the no-true-Scotsman fallacy select a subgroup from within a group. The persuader then redefines the group as the subgroup. In this way, the persuader claims only the members of the subgroup are part of the group.

For example, an evolutionist defines “scientist” as only those scientists who believe in evolutionism. The persuader then claims no scientists who disbelieve evolutionism are scientists. Then the persuader claims all scientists believe in evolutionism. Next, the persuader uses the claim that all scientists believe in evolutionism as proof of evolutionism.

The persuader used flimflam to give the illusion stories of evolutionism are facts. The persuader then limits the definition of scientists. The persuader limits the definition to only those scientists who believe in evolutionism. That final step of reasoning completes the circular reasoning aspect of this fallacy.

Related:

no-true-scientist fallacy and frozen-abstraction fallacy

Not-Connecting-the-Dots Fallacy

(a.k.a. Failure to Think Things Through)

Failure to consider the consequences of decisions, actions, or assertions

Example:

Some thinkers endorse naturalism but fail to connect the dots. If naturalism were true, human reason would be pragmatic only, and humans couldn’t reason beyond their immediate sensory experience. They couldn’t discuss anything rationally. They could observe, but they couldn’t reason about the observation. They could do science pragmatically and develop all kinds of technology, but they could never rationally discuss the truth.

Despite their limitation, these thinkers make claims about spiritual matters, right, wrong, truth, and history, none of which is an immediate sensory experience. Some of them claim God can’t reveal anything. Some of them argue against the Bible. If pressed, most of them claim they can self-generate knowledge without the benefit of either observation or divine revelation. Some of them believe they can know about events in the distant past and know the age of the earth or the age of the universe.

They aren’t connecting the dots.

Not-Invented-Here Fallacy

Treating anything that originates from outside of a certain defined category as false or less acceptable based on its origin

This certain defined category could be an organization, a nationality, an ethnic group, a gender, an age group, or any such category

Examples:

• Buying one’s own product when another product would fit better.
• Building one’s own car rather than buying a car when one has no desire or ability to build a car.
• Developing software in-house when better and less expensive choices are available.
• Doing it yourself when hiring a contractor would be a better choice.

Related:

genetic fallacy

Notable-Effort Fallacy

Using effort to prove a claim rather than using sound reasoning

Example:

Bill’s assertions must be right. Look how hard he works.

We’ve invested a lot of work, time, and money developing the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, it must be correct. If we give it up, all those tax dollars would be wasted.

We could apply this same logic to many other theories and theologies. We ought to hold theories and theologies loosely since God shows us no one knows anything in its fullness.

If anyone thinks to have known anything, not yet does he know as it is necessary to know. ~ 1 Corinthians 8:2 Berean Literal Bible

Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. ~ 1 Corinthians 13:12 Berean Study Bible

Objectification Fallacy

(a.k.a. Reification, Anti-Conceptual-Mentality Fallacy, Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract, Concretism, Hypostatization Fallacy, or Misplaced Concreteness)

Thinking of concepts, theories, assumptions, or abstractions as concrete facts or realities

Example:

Evolution is, for all practical purposes, a scientific fact.

We can test and observe scientific facts. “Evolution” is a story about history going back millions of years. We can’t repeatedly observe the story over millions of years to see whether it happened. Stories and theories aren’t concrete. They’re conceptual. Therefore, persuaders who claim they can test or observe them commit the fallacy of objectification. They use many systems to create the illusion of testing and observing, but they’re saying something abstract is concrete. One way to create this illusion is to say a theory predicts but neglect to mention most of the predictions aren’t fulfilled. Even Nostradamus, the false prophet, predicted at 80% accuracy, but that didn’t prove he was a true prophet. God requires 100% accuracy before we trust a prophet.

When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. ~ Deuteronomy 18:22 Berean Study Bible

Observation-Distortion-by-Preconceived-Ideas Fallacy

Allowing preconceived ideas, expectations, and worldviews to affect concentration and direct attention and skew the observation

Observation-Expectation Fallacy

(a.k.a. Expected-Observation Fallacy or Distorted-by-Expectations Fallacy)

Failing to consider observations that don’t fit the expectations or worldviews

Example:

A similar weakness is inherent in the wide variety of isotope dating methods that a worker has to choose from. If one method gives unsatisfactory results he can just discard those results and use another method until he finds the result that satisfies his prior expectations. ~ Long Age Isotope Dating, Creation.com

Thinkers committing observation-expectation fallacies discard data unless they expect the data. They don’t record observations they didn’t expect. They think these are anomalies, so they ignore them. Sometimes, thinkers fear rejection because others would reject what they observed. Those who present data that doesn’t fit a group-held worldview take a risk.

Occult Fallacy

(a.k.a. Neopaganism Fallacy or Paganism Fallacy)

Reasoning based on claims of demons

Example:

We are all receiving more help than we know from spirit guides, ascended masters, and others.

This quote exemplifies a practice of the New Age religion, although “help” is a misnomer. These demonic entities are extremely dangerous and malicious liars. While fallacies begin as thoughts, they expose themselves as words and deeds.

The occult fallacy is a form of axiomatic-thinking fallacy, but it bases reasoning on lies coming from demonic entities. The occult consists of a broad spectrum of religions. They seek enlightenment from spiritual entities, earth spirits, aliens, dead saints, or gods, all of which are demons. Since demons lie, it’s a counterfactual fallacy to base reasoning on “information” that comes from demons.

Omission Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Omission)

Leaving out important information

Filtering information and only presenting part of it in a way that gives a false impression

Examples:

• Teaching evolution, billions of years, or molecules-to-humanity without discussing the problems and assumptions.
• The news media filters the facts to give false impressions or to avoid godly conclusions.

Fallacies of omission include all fallacies that leave out information to create a false impression.

Examples of Omission Fallacies:

• Taboo
• Reductionism
• persimplex responsum
• denialism
• retroduction
• best-in-field
• converse accident
• accident
• argument from the negative
• falsified inductive generalization
• frozen abstraction
• opposition
• no true scientist
• no true Scotsman
• argument from silence
• gaps
• ad ignorantiam question
• appeal to ignorance
• invincible ignorance
• unfalsifiable claims
• moving the goalposts
• missing link
• uncontrolled factors
• overlooking secondary consequences
• ignoring historical example
• failure to state assumptions
• apriorism
• unteachable
• FAB
• suppression of the agent
• head in the sand
• McNamara
• Ambiguity
• card stacking

Only-I-Can-Ask-Questions Fallacy

A form of monopolizing the conversation by asking questions and refusing to answer any questions

Persuaders who commit this fallacy insist they’re the only ones who can ask questions. They fail to state their own positions. Then, they play “Now I’ve got you.” They may stubbornly refuse to answer any questions while asking questions. They may say, “You have the burden of proof, but I don’t” Of course, either everyone has a burden of proof, or no one has a burden of proof.

If someone is challenging a claim, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask about the basis of the challenge. Often, the challenge is hiding a hidden claim. It’s common for the challenger to have his or her own strongly-held opinion of truth, but hiding that opinion allows the challenger to avoid defending his or her own strongly-held opinion.

Schools teach this game. They teach an insincere method of debate in which it’s considered a “good tactic” to set up an unequal burden of proof. They do this by saying, “The person making the claim must not shift the burden of proof to the person challenging the claim.” That statement is also a claim. And that claim is not defendable. It’s a rule pulled out of the air to set up an unequal burden of proof.

Ontic Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ontological Fallacy)

Thinking we get knowledge through raw perceptions

Ignoring how the limits of human senses and the worldview affect perception and act as a filter

Example:

I use objective observations of science written in the peer-reviewed scientific journals to prove the earth is billions of years old.

Human beings can’t get outside themselves to be objective. Without divine revelation, the human mind has no way to reason beyond observations, and trying to calculate the age of the earth from observations requires reasoning beyond observations. It’s automatically subjective, and it automatically requires making up stuff as part of the calculation process. Peer review makes it worse when those with the political power limit the peers to those who agree with the group-held paradigms.

Related:

intensional fallacy, intensional context, hooded-man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, and confusing ontology and epistemology

Open-Minded-Forum Fallacy

(a.k.a. Open-Minded-Wiki Fallacy, Collaboration Fallacy, Social-Media Fallacy, or Fair-and-Balanced-News Fallacy)

Creating a venue of communication that gives the illusion of being open to every idea while carefully filtering ideas on certain subjects

An illusion of balance and openness in forums that censor content that conflicts with sacred cows

As with other message control systems, the open-minded-forum fallacy gives the illusion of consensus. Those who control the media allow certain messages to enhance the false impression of openness. However, they carefully control politically important subjects. Because of human nature, we see this fallacy everywhere. A person or group controls or tries to gain control of every form of communication.

This fallacy works best if the owners invite the public to participate in the discussion. Those who control the venue deceive many people into believing the venue presents all sides of the issue. However, the venue doesn’t allow all sides to have an equal voice.

Moderators hold tight control on which sides they’ll allow. The owners of the platform only allow enough discussion to make you think they’re allowing free and open communication. Behind the scenes, they favor one side and carefully edit, filter, inhibit, or discredit other sides of an issue. For example, a wiki has monitors who quickly delete or modify any edits that go against the desired message on a sacred-cow subject. Search engines and social media platforms use technology to filter what people are likely to see, sometimes in extreme ways. On social media platforms, artificial intelligence software automatically makes certain messages hard to find and others easy to find. The possibilities are endless.

Examples:

• Wikipedia closely monitoring content to reflect ungodly opinions
• Google ranking ungodly sites higher
• Google ranking Wikipedia first in searches
• Facebook shadow banning or closing accounts at will
• Twitter shadow banning or closing accounts at will

Opposition Fallacy

(a.k.a. Fallacy of Opposition)

Claiming that those who disagree with a certain position aren’t credible because they disagree

Examples:

Those scientists who question evolutionism aren’t to be trusted. They can’t be real scientists if they don’t realize evolutionism is the basis of all science.

I can’t believe you’re so small-minded to say all sex outside of marriage [life-long, loving commitment between one man and one woman] is sin.

Persuaders who commit the opposition fallacy claim that no one should listen to those who disagree with them. They tell us we can’t believe anyone who disagrees with them. They know we can’t believe those people because those people disagree with them. Evolutionists use this fallacy to promote the big-bang-billions-of-years-no-Genesis-Flood-life-from-non-life-molecules-to-humanity story. Climate change alarmists attack competent scientists for questioning the climate change story.

Related:

circular reasoning

Ought-Is Fallacy

(a.k.a. It Ought To Be True so It Is True)

Assuming that what “ought to be true” is true

Examples:

There shouldn’t be any reality, and the right way to understand life is we live in a computer simulation or a dream of Brahma, so that’s what I choose to believe.

Humanity ought to be free to have sex any way anyone wants to have sex. Therefore, it’s bigoted and hateful to say there’s anything wrong with anything anyone does sexually.

The persuaders who commit the ought-is fallacy assume what ought to be. Only God decides what ought to be.

Related:

moralistic fallacy, circular reasoning

Outdated-Information Fallacy

Putting forward a premise in support of a conclusion after the premise has been proved false

Examples:

The fossil record proves evolution happened.

Chimp and human DNA are more than 98% similar.

The simple cell formed in a prebiotic soup.

The geologic column is a record of billions of years.

Persuaders who commit the outdated-information fallacy use what people once considered true as proof of another claim. However, the so-called “proof” was already disproved. And yet, the persuader uses it as proof for something else.

More Examples:

• Hagel’s falsified drawings
• False claims about the so-called “geologic column”
• False claims about transitional forms
• The Kinsey Report

Of course, we must know the claims are false or unknown. If a consensus of experts declares something false, that doesn’t make it false. It just makes it a bandwagon fallacy.

Outright-Lie Fallacy

(a.k.a. Total Lie)

A lie totally made up with no truth in it

Examples:

God is dead.

No one has a real experience with Christ since Christ isn’t alive.

The moon is made of green cheese.

The earth is flat, and I have scientific evidence that proves it.

All logic must begin with axioms.

If we agree on axioms before we begin a discussion, we can have a rational discussion.

An outright lie is totally false. However, most outright lies are surrounded by truth to give the lies the illusion of credibility. Most lies contain a considerable amount of truth. They’re like rat poison with 98% good food and 2% poison.

For instance, an entire paragraph may contain some true and some false, which makes the issue seem gray or debatable. However, when we look closely, we can separate the true statements from the outright lies because things are either true or false when we clarify, define, separate, and analyze each statement. So, when we look at each claim, no gray areas exist in the specific claims that make up the overall argument.

Of course, persuaders seldom overtly state some of those individual claims. We can’t expose those lies as easily since persuaders don’t state them openly. That’s the magic of innuendo.

Overlooking-Secondary-Consequences Fallacy

Accounting for only the immediate effects of a decision or action while ignoring other consequences

Examples:

We’re living together for a while to make sure we’re compatible before we get married.

Sex outside of marriage causes many problems, and we’ll understand the depth of the problems in the final judgment. The problems extend beyond the many physical problems to serious problems of the spirit and mind.

Those who live together without making a life-long, permanent commitment are using each other. It’s a hateful act they falsely call “love.” They’re perverting God’s perfect plan for marriage. They have a form of reasoning that allows them to shack up for a while, but they can use that same reasoning after they’re married to excuse extra-marital affairs. They can use the same reasoning to justify any behavior no matter how foul. They base this reasoning on made-up stuff and emotion.

The fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences is a form of not connecting the dots.

• Governments have made laws or set up programs without realizing those laws and programs would cause great harm.
• The welfare system has destroyed many inner-city families in the U. S. A.
• Thinkers make claims without considering the logical consequences of the assertions.
• Influential people make statements that hurt many people, but the influential people don’t consider the logical endpoints of their statements.

Overton-Window Fallacy

(a.k.a. Moving the Overton Window, Hegelian Dialectic Fallacy, Alarmism, or We Have to Do Something)

Using a crisis (possibly artificially created) to push for a change and having the change become the new normal

Examples:

1970s: Human-caused global cooling is a fact of science; therefore, people have to give up freedom to head off the coming ice age.

1990s: Human-caused global warming is a fact of science; therefore, people have to give up freedom to head off the coming global disaster as the ice caps melt.

Now: Human-caused climate change is a fact of science; therefore, we need a totalitarian New World Order to correct the problem.

Joseph Overton originated the idea that a window of politically acceptable policies exists at any moment, but manipulators can move this window during a crisis. People in the government create a crisis or the feeling of crisis. Then, they get people in the general population to change their attitudes. Using the Overton-window fallacy is one way governments move toward totalitarian power. Schools put students into a crisis where they’re overloaded, making the students more open to changing their basic beliefs and morals. Ungodly manipulators use the Overton window to push for more governmental power, less freedom, or any related issues like gun control. Notice how quickly the power-brokers could move a lukewarm Christian society into a hedonistic godless society. The Overton window was a tool they used.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. – Rahm Emanuel

Overwhelming-Exception Fallacy

Generalizing, but with exceptions that leave less of the generalization than most people would realize

Example:

Sandy Sandbuilder: The United States has the most freedom of any nation that ever existed.

Rocky Rockbuilder: What about all the regulations? Can you think of anything you do that isn’t regulated? The average annual cost of business regulations is $34,000 for each employee and growing.

Sandy: Well, besides the regulations, the United States has the most freedom of any nation that ever existed.

Sandy Sandbuilder’s statement has an exception that makes it meaningless.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I serve the Lord with everything that’s within me, but I still have a brain and God wants me to use it.

Sandy Sandbuilder wants to serve Jesus, yet he wants to lean on his own understanding. He doesn’t realize the two are mutually exclusive. His exception eliminates his commitment.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I’m a Christian, but I don’t allow that to impact my lifestyle.

Package-Deal Fallacy

Joining things that aren’t necessarily related

Example:

. . . what I’m going to call ‘science.’ Not historical science—not observational science—science! ~ Bill Nye

In his debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye said historical science is the same as operational science. That’s the package-deal fallacy in action. In simple terms, Bill Nye said scientific observation is the same as making up stories about what scientists observe. He created a package deal that includes observation and made-up stuff under a single label.

This package-deal fallacy was central to the argument for evolutionism. Within three years of the debate, nearly all references to “operational science” and “historical science” vanished from the Internet. It all seemed a bit like Nineteen Eighty-Four.

We define “evolution” as change over time.

This definition of “evolution” combines observation with made-up stuff. That way we can’t tell whether “evolution” means observed reality or make-believe.

Persuaders who commit the package-deal fallacy lump unrelated things together. Often, they lump opposed or mutually exclusive things together. Sometimes, they try to confuse us by lumping two unrelated things, like imagination and observation, into one term. They may insist two unrelated things are the same thing.

Persuaders often join unrelated things with words like these:

• and
• while
• since
• because

Packing-the-House Fallacy

Choosing an audience that will support one side of an issue and oppose other sides

Examples:

• When Bill Nye and Ken Ham scheduled a debate, both sides of the debate moved quickly to buy tickets. The tickets sold out within minutes.
• At political debates, the parties negotiate fiercely for who gets which seats.
• Ungodly thinkers have packed the house through a loosely-knit networking system. By that, they control entertainment media, news media, publishing, museums, libraries, courts, non-profit corporations, for-profit corporations, religious organizations, and every other means of communication.
• Paid ungodly Internet trolls are a method of packing the house on social media sites. Another method is when the tech giants like Google, Twitter, or Facebook shadow ban or close accounts of those with whom they disagree.
• Internet voting is a farce as organized campaigns try to get out the vote using every means and allowing multiple votes by a single person.
• University campuses, high schools, and grade schools find ways to make sure only ungodly messages are taught. They pack the house with ungodly teachers and professors.
• Ungodly thinkers have found ways to artificially quench YouTube videos and books using ratings, reviews, and voting.

Paralipsis-Attack Fallacy

(a.k.a. Paralepsis)

Mentioning something by saying it should not be mentioned

Examples:

I shouldn’t mention my political opponent is colluding with the Russians.

Persuaders use paralipsis to hedge when they want to accuse but don’t want to appear as an accuser or judge. If the persuader’s hedged accusation proves false, the persuader says, “I never made any accusation.”

We shouldn’t talk about how superior we are to others, so I’m not going to say anything about it.

The persuader adds emphasis by talking about how she won’t mention the subject.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

Dawkins could have put all his accusations into the hedge. He could have said he would rather not consider any of his accusations and religious slurs. He’s really saying, “My assumption-based reasoning and ungodliness is superior to your revelation-based reasoning and godliness.”

Paralysis-of-Analysis Fallacy

(a.k.a. Procrastination Fallacy)

Failure to decide or act because the planning stage is never completed

A thinker stuck in the paralysis of analysis never decides since they may discover some new data, so they never have all the data. Therefore, there’s never enough confidence to go forward on anything. But if we pray for God’s leading and expect Him to provide the decision, He’ll give us knowledge of His will and confidence to go forward.

Patently-False-Statement Fallacy

(a.k.a. Blatantly False Statement)

Making an obviously false statement

Making untrue claims that are obvious lies

Examples:

We can observe the big bang.

We can scientifically observe life springing from non-life.

We observe one-celled living organisms evolving into people.

We can observe the Genesis Flood didn’t happen.

We can observe billions of years.

Science disproves God.

Through science, we can prove the existence of God is highly unlikely.

These are all patently false. They are blatant lies.

Pearl-Clutching Fallacy

Declaring a sin “normal” and then claiming anyone who calls the sin “sin” is pearl-clutching, which implies the sin isn’t sinful

Example:

I could only chuckle at Sally’s pearl-clutching when she claimed there’s something wrong with two consenting unmarried people having a normal sexual relationship.

The culture works to make sin seem normal and righteousness seem weird or silly. The pearl-clutching fallacy is a form of ungodly judgmentalism that puts evil for good and good for evil.

Peer-Pressure Fallacy

Using social and emotional pressure to persuade or force conformity

The culture tries to squeeze us into its mold because people want us to think the way they think, talk the way they talk, and do what they do. They even want us to accept their assumptions. However, if we try to fit in, we sear our consciences. Then we might even put pressure on other people and try to coerce them to conform to our newly corrupted state of mind.

Peer-Review-Illusion Fallacy

Using peer review as a basis for authority when the peer review system is corrupt

Show me a peer-reviewed article that was published in a recognized scientific journal, and I’ll believe you.

Some people consider peer-reviewed papers authoritative, but who controls the peer review? How do the controllers select the reviewers? Why don’t the controllers allow those with different viewpoints to review?

A peer-review process has a built-in mechanism for viewpoint discrimination and for protecting certain sacred cows. So, the term “peer review” creates a false impression of authority, open-mindedness, progress, and accuracy. In other words, some people think a peer-reviewed paper is more likely to be true when it’s subject to the same human failings as non-peer-reviewed papers. Peer review is often the most deceptive confirmation bias possible.

We can only know something is true by having sound logic, which includes a true premise. However, human consensus has no power to create a true premise. Only God can reveal a true premise.

At the same time, a multitude of counselors is a teaching of Scripture. It’s part of the order for the Church. However, this system of many counselors only works when the counselors move in submission to the Holy Spirit as we see in Acts 15.

Peirce’s-Abductive-Schema Fallacy

Trying to guess the most likely cause of something

Examples:

Not historical science—not observational science—science! Things that each of us can do akin to what we do, we’re trying to out-guess the characters on murder mystery shows. ~ Bill Nye

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position. ~ Boyce Rensberger: Science and bias, Creation.com

Peirce’s abductive schema, in this sense, consists of trying to guess the “most likely” cause of something we observe, and guessing is a form of making up stuff. The term “most likely” implies we calculated the probability. However, those who use Peirce’s abductive schema usually can’t rationally calculate the probability. Why can’t they rationally calculate probability? They assume some factors and add those to their calculation. Therefore, their calculation is an assumption. In the same way, a magician waves his hand, they do their math. However, the entire performance is fake. If the question is complex, they may commit a fallacy called ludus when they try to calculate the probability.

They may call a gut feeling “probability.” So without divine revelation, we can’t know the “most likely” cause nor can we know we’ve considered all possible causes. However, in many cases, persuaders don’t even try to include all the possible causes. For instance, they often omit God on purpose, especially in ungodly science. Sometimes, they don’t even try to calculate the probability. Rather, they base this so-called “probability” on their feelings, emotions, and biases. Of course, God can provide what we call a “gut feel” especially when we consciously seek Him and ask Him for wisdom. That’s why God tells us to test the spirits to make sure they’re from Him.

Abduction doesn’t use logic or rational thought. In practice, Peirce’s abductive schema is simply a method for confirmation bias of a worldview. Therefore, Peirce’s abductive schema is a trick. The persuaders create an illusion of knowledge while simply following a paradigm. Sadly, universities throughout the world call that illusion “science.” They use fallacy to sell lies. Then they use those lies to sell ungodly immorality, evolutionism, and old-earth dogmatism. And they use the same lies to sell fake morality and fake spirituality.

Perfect-Solution Fallacy

(a.k.a. Nirvana Fallacy, Perfect-Solution Fallacy, or Perfectionist Fallacy)

Comparing real things to unrealistic, idealized alternatives

The perfect-solution fallacy results in rejecting conclusions or solutions that don’t meet the unrealistic ideal. Of course, the idealized alternatives fit the worldview of the person suggesting the alternatives, but they don’t reflect reality. And when they project the assumption-based morality of the person suggesting the alternatives, they’re unrealistic and vacuous.

Examples of perfect-solution fallacies against God:

If God existed, He wouldn’t allow evil to exist.

This persuader is committing a perfect-solution fallacy since she’ll only accept a God Who has no patience to allow things to play out to a conclusion. She has a perfect solution in mind. In her perfect solution, God wouldn’t ever allow evil. God would force good. Since God allows evil and uses it for His ultimate good goal, she rejects God.

A good God would never create a world that could fall into sin.

This statement has similar flaws and tries to define God, claiming God wouldn’t be patient enough to create a world that He knew would fall into sin. He also knew He would redeem it. Also, God hasn’t revealed everything about why He must allow evil to exist, but this perfect-solution fallacy claims to know all things and to be wiser than God:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever ~ Deuteronomy 20:20a

Ungodly thinkers make up their own perfect solution of what God would do. They base their perfect solution on what they make up and chose to believe. Then they see that God hasn’t met their expectation. From this insane thinking, they conclude that God doesn’t exist.

No one can know anything since knowledge isn’t complete.

Persuaders usually apply this claim selectively, so most disbelievers limit their skepticism to those truths they want to avoid, yet they’ll accept anything about what they wish to be true. They’re skeptical of what they don’t want. They’re gullible when it comes to what they want.

For instance, these people who claim no one can know anything also think they know no one can know anything. They rarely apply this “no one can know anything” rule to their other strongly-held opinions. Also, these same people are often dogmatic about evolutionism and global warming.

Of course, their claim begins with an assumption of no almighty God Who reveals reality to His created beings. But God does reveal reality, so even ungodly thinkers know things. However, ungodly thinkers can’t tell the difference between good and evil, truth and error, or reality and make-believe because they refuse to acknowledge God’s revelation. They think the truth God reveals to them comes from some other source. They attribute it to assumption, clever guessing, inner genius, or some other source.

God reveals what we need to know so we can decide rationally. We can draw rational conclusions. If we don’t have to decide, God might not reveal a matter, but He gives us the knowledge that we need. He told us we wouldn’t know everything until He’s ready. Therefore, even though divine revelation is absolute, it’s partial and often muddied by the corrupt human mind. Even though our knowledge isn’t complete, we don’t dare to despise this day of small beginnings. God doesn’t condemn those of us who are taking our places in Christ Jesus in our immature state. And God will be faithful to complete the work of maturity if we keep moving at His command and don’t give up.

Persimplex-Responsum Fallacy

(a.k.a. Very-Simple-Answer Fallacy, or Very-Simple-Solution Fallacy)

Providing a single and simple answer to a very complex problem that requires answers to multiple questions

Examples:

Unfortunately, assumptions are a part of science. We cannot do science without making assumptions.

Why not? How about divine revelation instead of assumptions? Making up stuff is the golden hammer of ungodly thinkers. While making up stuff through assuming can answer any question, it’s unreliable for finding correct answers. And yet, it provides a simple solution for any problem. It eliminates divine revelation. It substitutes made-up stuff. The persimplex-responsum fallacy creates the illusion of knowledge. It makes certainty impossible.

Naturalism is a necessary presupposition for science.

Why? Naturalism provides no method by which we can say the natural laws we now observe are the same natural laws that will exist in an hour from now or that existed 4,000 years ago. However, God says He enforces the natural laws faithfully. This revelation gives us a reason to believe we can do science.

Personal-Conviction-as-Proof Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument from Personal Belief or Argument from Personal Conviction)

Using personal belief as the reason to believe

Asserting that personal belief is the reason to believe

Personal conviction can’t prove anything is true, so it’s a fallacy to present personal conviction as proof. It’s not a fallacy to state personal conviction, but personal conviction isn’t proof.

Examples:

I didn’t believe in the big bang story, but now I’m totally convinced of the big bang story. Therefore, you should believe in the big bang story.

Though this reasoning is common, it’s irrational. The persuader hasn’t even tried to give a true premise to prove the conclusion. To make the irrationality less obvious, persuaders usually don’t state the conclusion.

I know Jesus personally. He leads and guides me moment by moment in every situation. Therefore, you should believe Jesus Christ exists.

This Christian starts with a great testimony. However, since the conclusion doesn’t follow from his testimony, he shouldn’t have used the word “therefore.” The part that says, “You should believe Jesus Christ exists” is true, but the premises don’t prove it.

Personal conviction isn’t always a fallacy. Personal conviction without a reason (true premise and valid form) for the conviction is a fallacy. For those of us who know Jesus Christ, we have a path to conviction without committing fallacies. Ungodly thinkers have no such path.

Personal Conviction without Fallacy:

I know Jesus personally, and He leads and guides me moment by moment in every situation. You too can know Jesus personally, so you don’t have to take my word for it. Every person who seeks Him finds Him. Do you want me to explain how you can do that?

Personal-Incredulity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argument from Personal Incredulity or I Personally Don’t Believe It)

Claiming or implying personal lack of belief makes something untrue

What people believe or disbelieve doesn’t affect reality. The personal-incredulity fallacy is a smokescreen fallacy. It camouflages an axiomatic-thinking fallacy.

Examples:

I understand that Mr. Ham has some explanations for that [the reality of the Ark and the Genesis Flood] which I frankly find extraordinary ~ Bill Nye

In this example, Bill Nye was making an axiomatic claim. But he carefully hid this axiomatic-thinking fallacy. He used three smokescreen fallacies to hide it. These three were an innuendo, an ad-hominem fallacy, and a personal-incredulity-fallacy. His actual claim was something like this, “It doesn’t make sense to believe what the Bible says,” though he cloaked this claim in innuendo. Ken did demonstrate that the accounts of Scripture aren’t farfetched as Bill implied, but Bill’s overt attack on what he called “explanations” wasn’t Bill’s real attack. Bill’s real, covert attack was against the Bible and the God of the Bible. He attacked axiomatically. He based his attack on made-up stuff. He used personal incredulity to trick his audience into thinking his attack wasn’t just made-up stuff.

That to me is unsettling, troubling. ~ Bill Nye

No matter how unsettled or troubled Bill is, his emotion can’t change reality one bit.

Personification Fallacy

(a.k.a. Disney Fallacy, Anthropomorphism, Anthropomorphization, or Pathetic Fallacy)

Considering or treating concepts or inanimate objects as if they had intelligence or were persons

Examples:

Every fossil tells a story.

This quote comes from a BBC evolution-promoting cartoon, “Walking with Dinosaurs.” Every evolutionist tells a story, but fossils don’t tell stories. However, the personification fallacy helps persuaders to animate the fossils to tell lies to children.

The evidence speaks for itself.

Evidence doesn’t speak. People look at things, filter them through their worldviews, and interpret them as evidence. Evidence isn’t necessarily proof since the word “evidence” is vague and unsettled unless it’s defined.

The fossils tell us evolution happened.

Fossils never talk.

Evolution and natural selection formed the ear.

Evolution, mentioned here, refers to a story about a process that supposedly happened. Natural selection eliminates life-forms so weak or so disadvantaged they can’t reproduce. That’s all it does. Neither evolution nor natural selection has the intelligence to form the ear. That’s personification.

Natural selection tests various innovations and selects those that will work best.

The phrase, “natural selection,” implies an intelligent selector makes decisions and choices. That’s outrageous personification.

Evolution tinkered around with that until it solved the problem.

Evolution doesn’t tinker. If we were to think of evolution and natural selection as a god, we could more easily believe what the evolutionists are telling us. However, if we think of evolution as a creative story, we can understand what’s really happening.

Nature has designed some amazing living organisms.

Nature doesn’t design things.

Science tells us evolution is a scientific fact.

Science is a process. It doesn’t talk. Evolutionists don’t observe the story of gradual evolution over millions of years, but they presuppose it. The story of millions of changes over millions of years has never been scientifically observed.

Phantom-Absurdity Fallacy

(a.k.a. Argumentum Ad Lapidem)

Dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity

Example:

Your assertion that you know Christ personally and that He leads you is ridiculous.

The phantom-absurdity fallacy is a form of summary dismissal. Phantom absurdity is a way of avoiding the issue and a method of appeal to ridicule.

Phantom-Cause Fallacy

(a.k.a. False Cause, Spurious Causation, Gratuitous Inculpation, Questionable Cause, False Cause and Effect, or Non Causa Pro Causa)

Claiming one thing causes another when we don’t know the one causes the other

In the phantom-cause fallacy, a persuader claims one thing causes another, but the persuader has no proof the one causes the other.

Example:

Human activity is the cause of climate change.

The persuader claimed a cause and effect relationship but hasn’t shown any such relationship. The fluctuations in weather may be left-over effects of the worldwide Genesis Flood. Scientific Flood models predict these climate fluctuations. The climate change movement has political undertones, and political players regularly use untruth and fear to implement the Overton-window fallacy. What we’ve seen of the political bias and corruption casts further doubt on the “human activity” claim.

Phantom-Conflict Fallacy

(a.k.a. Phantom Inconsistency, False Conflict, or False Inconsistency)

Claiming that a conflict exists when no such conflict exists

Examples:

And, by the way, this thing started, as I understand it, Ken Ham’s Creation model is based on the Old Testament. So when you bring in, I’m not a Theologian, when you bring in the New Testament, isn’t that a little out of the box? ~ Bill Nye

Bill Nye is fishing for a conflict here when no conflict exists. Apparently, he doesn’t know the same God Who wrote the Old Testament also wrote the New Testament. The New Testament builds from the Old. Jesus quoted from Genesis in the New Testament treating it as a historical fact to make points about present reality. The Old Testament and New Testament confirm each other.

Sandy Sandbuilder: The Bible has a conflict. In Proverbs 26 it says, “Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will be just like him.” Then it says, “Answer a fool according to his foolishness, or he will think himself to be wise.”

Rocky Rockbuilder: That’s not a conflict. It’s a real catch 22. Who’s a fool? The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” A fool reasons without divine revelation. If I answer a fool but leave God out of my reasoning, I’m a fool who is answering a fool according to his folly. However, if I answer the fool and base my reasoning on divine revelation, the fool rejects divine revelation since the fool rejects God. I can’t win with a fool. A fool won’t accept wisdom, but a wise person listens. Better to seek out a wise person with an open mind. And yet, if I don’t answer the fool, the fool runs off thinking he or she has won a debate, so there’s no way to help a fool. It’s a catch 22.

The phantom-conflict fallacy is a specific form of false dilemma. The two choices may not be the only choices, or they may be the only two choices, but not mutually exclusive.

Phantom-Distinction Fallacy

(a.k.a. Distinction Without a Difference or Sham Distinctions)

Implying a difference between two possibilities when those two possibilities are identical

Implying a difference between two choices when those two choices aren’t different in the ways implied

Examples:

I said I’m a materialist, not an atheist!

A materialist is an atheist. Materialism is a certain view of the atheist. This persuader implies materialists aren’t atheists, but they’re the same. Atheists do the same thing with naturalism. They also play with the definition of “atheism.” If we’re discussing the details of materialism and atheism, we may make distinctions. However, since these are religious beliefs, we’ll find fine distinctions with each person’s definition of the word. When discussing the difference between knowing Christ versus following atheism, there’s no distinction between naturalism, materialism, and atheism.

We are comparing a method of knowledge (science) to a system of belief (faith), which is not known for revising itself based on new evidence. Even when it does, the “wrongs” are blamed on human interpretation. Science is all about improving ideas to get closer to the truth, and, in some cases, completely throwing out theories that have been proved wrong. Furthermore, the claims of religion are virtually all unfalsifiable, thus cannot be proved wrong. Therefore, comparing religion and science on the basis of falsifiability, is a faulty comparison. ~ Logically Fallacious, a book on fallacies from an atheistic presupposition

Logically Fallacious (LF) uses this statement as an example of faulty comparison, saying you can’t compare faith and science. Many problems exist in this little paragraph, but we’ll try to unpack it. In the process, we’ll learn something about the phantom-distinction fallacy.

LF decides to define science as a way to get knowledge and faith as a system of belief. That’s a phantom distinction since faith is a way to get knowledge. Science is a system of belief. In a recent, well-publicized debate, Bill Nye defined science as both a way to get knowledge and a body of knowledge (system of belief). Faith, if we’re talking about Christian faith, is a way to know. It works this way. God speaks in unfolding revelation. He speaks through Scripture and every means mentioned in Scripture. And He never contradicts what He says through Scripture. Faith comes as a gift from God to believe what God just said. That’s a way to get knowledge. When human beings presume to fabricate knowledge (a function of the ungodly thinking problem), then both science and faith fail.

The term “religion” confuses people. The term “religion” may be executing a package-deal fallacy. Perhaps LF is trying to put all philosophies into one package as if they were all the same. Maybe LF defines religion in a special way that excludes atheism, agnosticism, and such. We can’t tell.

LF states that science is a moving target and that faith doesn’t move at all. God speaks through the Bible and tells us we are to go from faith to faith and from glory to glory. We press toward the mark.

LF mentioned religion and not any specific religion. Christianity isn’t a religion for those who follow Christ. For those who follow Christ, Christianity is a relationship with Christ Himself. And yet, many people don’t understand that distinction. For lukewarm Christians who think they’re rich and increased of goods and in need of nothing, they never listen to Christ and never increase their knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, holiness, or redemption. They think their particular interpretations of Scripture are correct and never ask the Holy Spirit to correct them. They may follow traditions or man-made orders and never ask the Holy Spirit to lead them into His order. They aren’t pressing toward an Ephesians 4 experience.

These Christians are at ease in Zion and never move forward in Christ. LF may be referring to that specific class of Christians if LF included Christianity as a religion. For other non-Christian religions, there is no true faith but only make-believe faith. Humans are capable of making themselves believe in all sorts of things. To do so is to conjure up make-believe faith. However, real faith comes by hearing God’s utterance. God speaks. When we honor Him and receive His utterance, faith comes. Jesus Christ originates that faith in us. Perhaps LF doesn’t understand the process of faith and grace.

There’s no difference between faith and science. Both rest on divine revelation if the reasoning is sound, and neither one can have sound reasoning if they don’t rely on divine revelation. We can’t know anything scientifically without divine revelation. Even when ungodly scientists take part in the development of new technology, they can only develop that technology as God reveals reality to the scientists.

From the ungodly scientists’ perspective, they can never have any real knowledge. They can’t even prove they exist or the world around them exists. Most of them know basic truths. They know they exist. However, they don’t know how they know they exist. They can’t give a rational response if anyone asks them how they know. They know because God revealed to them. But they refuse to admit God revealed to them. They’re in denial of God. So they make up some other unsound reason to believe they exist. We’re using their existence as an example. However, we could say the same about any other knowledge.

Since they reject God’s revelation of these and other facts, they’re in a fog. They accept the facts but don’t know how they know the facts are true. However, God’s rain falls on the just and the unjust. The Logos, Christ, is the Light Who lights every person who comes into the world. That means God reveals reality to the just and the unjust. And He reveals reality to all people, even to those who refuse to acknowledge Him or thank Him. He reveals much about Himself. He says those who refuse to acknowledge Him are without excuse. There is a point at which people turn from the Light until they can’t tell good from evil, truth from error, or reality from make-believe.

Phantom-Impossibility Fallacy

Claiming impossibility without proof of impossibility

Examples:

• Trying to prove the existence of God is impossible.
• Trying to prove evolution is impossible without divine revelation.
• Trying to prove Noah’s Ark is impossible.

God proves His existence by revealing Himself to anyone who seeks Him in sincerity, humility, submission, respect, and persistence. Once we know Him, He also proves the history in the Bible is true. He proves it by divine revelation through Scripture and provides additional confirmation through honest scientific research.

However, no one can prove anything to a person who’s unwilling to acknowledge the proof. In other words, it’s always possible for a person to say, “I’m not convinced.” Refusing to look at the evidence proves nothing. The evidence is the person of Christ. Since whoever seeks Him finds Him, those who refuse to seek Him are refusing to look at the evidence.

God is impossible since God wouldn’t allow all the evil in the world.

We know little about the nature of reality, so this statement rushes to judgment with no basis other than the idealized dream of the person making the statement. This statement assumes God doesn’t have a good reason for allowing what He allows.

Atheism is impossible because we see the created world around us.

Atheism is impossible, but this statement doesn’t give us the reason that atheism is impossible. Atheism is impossible because God exists. We know God exists because He reveals Himself to us, and God also reveals Himself to every so-called “atheist.” He reveals Himself to them through the things He has created. He reveals Himself to atheists every time Christians testify of Christ to atheists. He also reveals everything that humans can know about the Godhead. He reveals this in-depth information to people who claim to be atheists. Atheists have refused to acknowledge God, so God turned them over to their own corrupted minds where they can suppress the truth through their own unrighteousness. Since they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, they can’t tell the difference between good and evil, truth and error, or reality and make-believe because they have excluded divine revelation.

The phantom-impossibility fallacy involves impossibility claims. And all impossibility claims are assertions of universal negatives. In phantom-impossibility fallacies, the persuader either offers no proof for this impossibility or offers evidence based on assumptions. A persuader who says something is impossible is asserting a universal negative. Universal negatives require omniscience. The only rational way anyone can claim impossibility is if God reveals it. For instance, God tells us He can’t lie.

Phantom impossibility is a statistical fallacy. Impossibility is a calculation of 0% possibility, but calculations need complete and accurate data plus a formula proved to yield an accurate result. If we add even a single assumption to the calculation, we nullify the entire calculation. If we can’t validate the formula in the real world, we nullify the entire calculation.

If they can’t show you their formula for calculating impossibility, do they have a formula? If they have a formula, ask them about every number. See if one or more numbers are phantoms. If they assumed, they created a phantom number. If they calculated any numbers using one or more assumptions, those numbers are phantoms. If one number is a phantom, the impossibility is a phantom. If the formula is a phantom, the impossibility is a phantom.

Phantom-Improbability Fallacy

Claiming either improbability without a legitimate calculation

Examples:

It isn’t likely that God exists.

The Genesis Flood probably never happened.

If persuaders claim something is improbable, they’re implying someone accurately calculated the probabilities. They imply they used accurate data for each number in their calculation. And they imply they assumed nothing in getting any number. They must get the numbers by using a rational process. They can’t just make them up. They must get the complete set of numbers they need to calculate the probability.

They imply they used a valid mathematical formula. They imply they did the math. Probability is a statistical calculation. They must research until they get enough information to calculate the probability. It’s not easy or cheap, and it’s often impossible or impractical.

If they can’t show you their formula for calculating improbability, do they have a formula? If they have a formula, ask them about every number. See if one or more numbers are phantoms. If they assumed, assumed numbers are phantoms. If they calculated any numbers using one or more assumptions, those numbers are phantoms. If one number is a phantom, the improbability is a phantom. If the formula is a phantom, the improbability is a phantom.

They can’t rationally calculate anything using assumed numbers or fudge factors. However, if they use assumptions to show something is improbable, every assumption must give the greatest benefit to probability. If they use assumptions to show something is probable, every assumption must give the greatest benefit to improbability.

The more complex the problem, the more difficult the calculation. If we have a complex problem, it’s difficult to find all the factors. The two examples, the existence of God and the Flood event, are complex calculations requiring many factors. And we have no way to know if we’ve identified all the factors let alone accurately measured the factors. Probability calculations only work in simple domains without many variables. ^(Ludus) We can’t calculate probabilities of complex domains without assuming. Sadly, many persuaders hide the assumptions and pretend the assumptions don’t exist. In complex domains, persuaders talk about probabilities, but they only have gut feelings. Probability isn’t a gut feeling but a calculation.

Phantom-Logic Fallacy

Creating the illusion of logic and rational thought when no logic is presented

Persuaders often use “logic” and “reason” as magic words since just mentioning these words makes it seem as if some actual rational thought took place. With phantom logic, the persuader just mentions the word “logic” without using sound logic.

Example:

I believe in evolution (molecules to humankind) based on logic and science.

That’s phantom logic and phantom science, so a claim like that proves nothing. When we ask for the exact steps of logic and the exact scientific process by which we could prove molecules-to-humanity evolution to ourselves, we get excuses. We won’t get sound logic or scientific observation of the stories of evolutionism.

Phantom-Probability Fallacy

Claiming probability without a legitimate calculation

Examples:

It’s virtually certain life came from non-living materials by natural processes.

Molecules-to-humankind evolution is the most probable explanation for what we see around us today.

When persuaders claim something is probable or improbable, they’re implying someone performed research to calculate the probabilities. They imply accurate data. They imply a valid mathematical formula. They imply math. Probability is a statistical calculation. They must get the numbers by using a rational process. They can’t just make them up. They must get the complete set of numbers they need to calculate the probability. They need a method of measurement to objectively get those numbers. They must research until they get enough information to calculate the probability. It’s not easy or cheap, and it’s often impossible or impractical.

We can’t rationally calculate anything using assumed numbers or fudge factors. However, if we use assumptions to show something is probable, every assumption must give the greatest benefit to improbability. The inverse is true if we’re trying to prove improbability. Ask them for the formula. Then, ask them how they got each number for the formula. If they assume one thing, their probability is a phantom.

The more complex the problem, the more difficult the calculation. If we have a complex problem, it’s difficult to find all the factors. We don’t have a way to know we’ve accounted for all the factors. These calculations only work in simple domains without many variables. ^(Ludus) We can’t calculate probabilities of complex domains without assuming. Sadly, many persuaders hide the assumptions and pretend the assumptions aren’t there. In complex domains, persuaders talk about probabilities, but they only have gut feelings. Probability isn’t a gut feeling but a calculation.

Phantom-Proof Fallacy

Talking about proof without presenting any proof

Presenting proof that doesn’t prove anything

Example:

Rocky: You’re creating a straw-man fallacy by implying I don’t know fossils exist. We both know fossils exist. We’re not debating whether they exist, but you have failed to prove the fossils are transitions.

Sandy Sandbuilder: I said we have found transitional forms. You said we haven’t. I gave various examples, which you disregarded.

Rocky Rockbuilder: I would need more than a bare assertion as proof the observed fossils are transitional.

Sandy: Well proof would require a breakdown of what a transitional fossil is and what makes it transitional as well as some basics of anatomy of different kinds of life.

Rocky: I sense a story coming on. I’m about as interested as I would be if you were going to explain the anatomy of a leprechaun to prove to me leprechauns exist. If it were leprechauns, I would ask you to give me a way to verify the existence. I might ask you to tell me how I could get to know a few of these guys rather than telling me stories about leprechaun anatomy in a fallacy of misleading vividness. I’m suggesting your claim of certain fossils being transitional forms is mythical. The fossils exist, but prove they’re transitional forms.

Sandy: Fossils are not mythical they are the bones of our ancestors. You are not refusing “stories,” you are refusing concrete facts and new ideas.

Rocky: To repeat, I accept the existence of the fossils, but you have failed to prove they’re transitions. I doubt that you’ve personally examined even one fossil that you’ve deduced, by sound deductive reasoning, to be transitional. That would require proof, and you haven’t mentioned any such proof. If everyone can observe something repeatedly, it’s a scientific fact. But no one observed these fossils transitioning between kinds of living organisms. You’re telling a story about it, but a story isn’t an observation. And new ideas are concepts, but you can’t use concepts as proof. You have to prove concepts, or you shouldn’t take them seriously. You see these fossils through the lens of a complete story. You see a story of a big bang, billions of years, and molecules organizing themselves into a cell and springing to life then morphing into ever more complex life-forms until they become people. This idea, as you call it, has become part of your worldview and seems more real than reality itself. However, you would have to prove the story or idea since it conflicts with what God is telling me.

Sandy: I don’t need to examine a fossil to know it’s an intermediate between what came before and what came after. And you don’t know or want to know what a transitional form even is.

Rocky: I asked for proof that your stories are true, but you either have no proof, or you refuse to provide any proof. You assume one came before and another came after. However, you don’t have proof. I’ve had many conversations like this one and no one has any proof. They just have stories. However, that’s not how I know you don’t have proof. That’s not how I know your stories are lies. I know by divine revelation. It’s always divine revelation versus made-up stuff.

Sandy Sandbuilder has phantom proof, but he can’t muster any real proof. He can assume one fossil came before. He can claim another came after. However, he can’t prove one came before and one came after. He’s assuming based on old-earth stories and no-Genesis-Flood stories.

Phantom-Relationship Fallacy

Claiming that a relationship exists when no such relationship exists

Form:

X is like Y. [X isn’t like Y.]

X is different from Y. [X is like Y.]

X proves Y. [X doesn’t prove Y.]

If X is true, Y can’t be true. [If X is true, Y can be true.]

If X is true, Y is true. [If X is true, Y isn’t necessarily true.]

X causes Y. [We don’t know if X causes Y.]

Examples of Phantom Relationships

If you don’t believe the earth is billions of years old, you don’t believe in science.

The fossil record proves evolution.

The lack of easy access to abortion would cause millions of women to die from coat hanger abortions.

Children are dying from crossing the border illegally. The President is causing this by asking for a wall to keep them from crossing the border illegally.

If we increase the welfare benefit, that will drastically reduce crime.

Persuaders claim all these relationships exist, but persuaders can’t rationally assume or claim a relationship exists without proof. In other words, persuaders must prove the relationships they claim to exist do exist. Proof is absolute by nature. Persuaders can’t rationally use assumptions, ideas, concepts, viewpoints, preconceptions, stories, or any other form of made-up stuff as proof.

Phantom-Science Fallacy

Creating the illusion of science when no one showed any science

Examples:

• A persuader merely says the word “science” or the word “evidence” to give the illusion that actual relevant science or evidence exists. At the same time, the word “evidence” confuses us since it has two meanings: proof or assumption-based opinion.
• A persuader talks about research that proves a claim. However, no one observed anything that proves the claim. Scientists conceived ideas and stories. They assumed and presupposed what they needed to make the claim.
• A persuader uses the word “science” to support a claim when no scientific research proves the claim.
• A persuader talks about observations while basing conclusions on assumptions. The persuader isn’t basing conclusions on observations without adding interpretations to observations. The persuader guides the interpretations of the observations. He guides the interpretations with assumptions. Therefore, changing the assumptions changes the conclusion. One assumption can completely skew the conclusion.

Phantom-Time Fallacy

Believing, without proof, that a certain length of time passed between events

Persuaders use circular reasoning and other fallacies to create phantom time. However, somehow the persuaders have forgotten that phantom time is only a story with no basis in fact. They forgot that this story comes out of a worldview.

For example, when persuaders tell the billions-of-years story, they merely presuppose the story rather than proving it. Then, they use this presupposition to prove itself. That’s circular reasoning. Then, they use it to prove other claims that never happened. In these cases, the story of “billions of years” becomes an underlying hidden assumption. As a result, the billions-of-years story distorts science, philosophy, ethics, and every discipline of thought. That’s not to say we can disprove billions of years. Neither the Bible nor scientific observation hints at billions of years, but that doesn’t disprove it. God could have hidden the supposed billions of years from us. And even though there’s no proof for it, we can’t absolutely prove billions of years didn’t take place just as we can’t prove no flying spaghetti monsters have ever existed.

Pigeonholing Fallacy

(a.k.a. Ahistoric Fallacy)

Sorting something or someone into a category incorrectly or inaccurately

Example:

I used to be a Christian, and I never had any experience with Christ, nor did I ever have an answer to prayer. Finally, I discovered that evolution was a fact of science, so I stopped the religious thing, so don’t tell me you’re a follower of Christ and Christ leads you. My life proves that to be impossible.

This claim pigeonholes everyone into godlessness. The persuader uses his lack of experience as proof. We don’t know why he failed to make contact with Jesus Christ. It could be that he tangled himself in dead religious form and ritual. Perhaps he never fully committed his life to Christ. Perhaps he committed himself to Christ but changed his mind. However, from what he told us, we can’t know what his problem was. We do know those who have failed can’t rationally pigeonhole everyone else into their own failure just because they have failed.

The claim has a second fallacy in the words: “evolution was a fact of science.” The class called “scientific facts” is defined as what scientists have repeatedly observed and tested. No scientist has repeatedly observed and tested the stories of evolutionism since they’re stories about the past. Therefore, the stories of evolutionism aren’t scientific facts. They’re creative stories about the past. This isn’t a pigeonholing fallacy but it’s a fallacy of classification. It’s a misnomer.

Ah. You’re another one of those presuppositionalists since you used the word “presupposition.” All your arguments have been debunked long ago.

This skeptic wasn’t addressing a presuppositionalist. He mentioned presupposition because the skeptic presupposed a conclusion into his previous statement using assumptive language. The skeptic pigeonholed the Christ-follower into a position the Christ-follower didn’t hold. Then the skeptic turned the pigeonholing fallacy into a summary-dismissal fallacy.

Pious-Fraud Fallacy

(a.k.a. The-Ends-Justify-the-Means Fallacy)

A fraud committed for a supposed “good” result

Examples:

• The Supreme Court made abortion legal based on what deceivers later admitted was a useful lie.
• An elected official admitted he deliberately lied to sway an election, but he said he did what was necessary.
• A religious organization encourages what they call “holy deception,” purposely lying to promote the religious organization.
• Scientists adjust data to prove global warming or old-earth stories.

POE-Game Fallacy

(a.k.a. Parody of Evangelicals)

A mind game played by ungodly thinkers where they pretend to be Christians but put forward bizarre ideas dogmatically and argue irrationally to give the illusion Christians are insane or violent

A false flag fallacy against Christians

Ungodly thinkers can’t think rationally, but they want to spread their religion of ungodliness. Most often, they try to do this by arguing. They use fallacies or tactics like intimidation. Ungodly thinkers developed a new method called “POE.” They pose as Christians but argue for weird ideas they insist are based on the Bible. The idea is to play the part so well that no one can tell whether they’re demon possessed, sincerely deluded Christians, or ungodly thinkers playing the POE game. The goal is twofold. First, the goal is to discredit followers of Christ. The secondary goal is to convince some Christians of the POE and encourage those newly deceived Christians they need to help spread the message.

Examples:

The earth is flat. The Bible clearly teaches this. Some Christians think the earth is a globe. I’m here to clear things up.

From this, the POE will launch into an elaborate sarcastic parody against Christians. The atheist will insist this is what the Bible teaches. To make the ridicule complete, the POE will use scientific-sounding language to say science backs up a claim the earth is flat. The object is to make Christ-followers appear crazy.

A massive number of ungodly websites try to outdo each other in their parodies of evangelicals.

They come into karaoke bars and request flat-earth songs about Jesus. They become pushy and won’t back off. They even threaten discrimination charges if the DJ won’t play their songs. If Christians confront them, they say they win souls with the flat earth theology. They claim Christians who talk about a global earth are the reason some people won’t accept Christ.

POE fallacies can follow any subject matter and take any side to start debates. The subject may be global warming, evolutionism, the age of the earth, fatalism, sexual perversions, or any number of other subjects.