Logic and the Message - Revision history

Admin: /* False dilemma or false dichotomy */

2020-11-21T16:43:53Z

False dilemma or false dichotomy

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

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

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

	=Moving the Goalposts=		=Moving the Goalposts=

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2020-11-21T16:43:26Z

Ad hominem

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

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

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

Admin: /* Straw Man */

2019-12-02T17:18:48Z

Straw Man

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

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

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2019-12-02T17:17:13Z

Ad hominem

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

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

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

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

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

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

	=Equivocation=		=Equivocation=

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2019-12-02T16:55:37Z

Ad hominem

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

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

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

Admin: /* The Red Herring */

2019-12-02T16:54:32Z

The Red Herring

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

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

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

Admin: /* Straw Man */

2019-12-02T16:47:39Z

Straw Man

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 =Straw Man=
-Attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position than the one his opponent actually holds, one that is easier to refute.
+The basic form of a strawman argument is:
 {{Bottom of Page}}

Admin: /* Moving the Goalposts */

2018-03-19T18:39:09Z

Moving the Goalposts

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 19 March 2018
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.		Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.

	::The law of non-contradiction ~~means~~ that two ~~opposite~~ statements ~~cannot~~ both be true at the same time and in the same sense. ~~Nothing that~~ is true ~~can be self-contradictory~~ or ~~inconsistent with any other truth~~. All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction.		::''The law of non-contradiction says that no two contradictory statements can both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Now, if someone tried to deny this and said, “The law of non-contradiction is false,” he would have a problem. Without the law of non-contradiction, there is no such thing as true or false, because this law itself draws the line between true and false.''<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 16.</ref> All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction:

	:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''		:::John 2:21 - ''No lie is of the truth.''

Admin: /* Moving the Goalposts */

2018-03-19T18:34:49Z

Moving the Goalposts

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 19 March 2018
Line 42:		Line 42:
	::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”		::“''You weren’t there when the cloud happened, so you don’t know how it happened''.”

	Since we can’t go back in time and “be there” there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.		Since we can’t go back in time and “be there”, there is no possible way to prove it didn’t happen as William Branham said, though the evidence in this particular case is so strong, you could actually argue not only for an overwhelming inductive case, but also for an empirical, deductive refutation of his claim, because of the law of non-contradiction.

	::The law of non-contradiction means that two opposite statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth. All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction.		::The law of non-contradiction means that two opposite statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth. All logic depends on this simple principle. Scripture very clearly affirms the law of non-contradiction.
Line 54:		Line 54:
	::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.		::Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of non-contradiction.

	While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.		While there can be truth in a lie, there can be no lie in the truth.

	=The Red Herring=		=The Red Herring=

Admin: /* False dilemma or false dichotomy */

2018-03-19T18:34:07Z

False dilemma or false dichotomy

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 19 March 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”		::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”

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

	=Moving the Goalposts=		=Moving the Goalposts=