Logical Fallacies
When formulating an argument, it is wise to avoid logical fallacies, as they will make your argument invalid.
1. Appeal to Ridicule
The fallacy of appealing to ridicule presents the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear absurd
“Faith in God is like believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy”
“Faith in God is like believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy”
2. Appeal to Probability
The fallacy of appealing to probability assumes that because something could happen, it will inevitably happen
“There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe. So there must be another planet with intelligent life on it”
“There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe. So there must be another planet with intelligent life on it”
3. The Genetic fallacy
This is where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
This fallacy can be broken down into two sections (a) It’s a line of reasoning in which a perceived fault in the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim itself. (b) It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence for the claim.
Example 1 for (a): “You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands?”. Just because you know the sexist origin of the wedding ring, it is logically inappropriate to reject it based on this argument alone. This actually also commits the Etymological fallacy which suggests that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
Example 2 for (a): “We don’t need God, we can explain that faith originated as a result of fear and anxiety”. Firstly, that is not how faith started, but even if it were true, it commits The Genetic Fallacy – it suggests that “just because that’s the way the belief originated, therefore the belief is false”.
Example 3 for (a): “Your God can’t be true, because you were just brought up to believe in him”. Just because you were brought up to believe in God, it doesn’t follow that believing in God is invalid. The statement commits The Genetic Fallacy.
Example 4 for (b): “I know evolution is true because I was taught it all my life in school”. Just because you were taught something all your life, doesn’t make it necessarily true! After all, for centuries they taught the Earth is flat.
Just because they taught it, it didn’t make it true.
This fallacy can be broken down into two sections (a) It’s a line of reasoning in which a perceived fault in the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim itself. (b) It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence for the claim.
Example 1 for (a): “You’re not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don’t you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands?”. Just because you know the sexist origin of the wedding ring, it is logically inappropriate to reject it based on this argument alone. This actually also commits the Etymological fallacy which suggests that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.
Example 2 for (a): “We don’t need God, we can explain that faith originated as a result of fear and anxiety”. Firstly, that is not how faith started, but even if it were true, it commits The Genetic Fallacy – it suggests that “just because that’s the way the belief originated, therefore the belief is false”.
Example 3 for (a): “Your God can’t be true, because you were just brought up to believe in him”. Just because you were brought up to believe in God, it doesn’t follow that believing in God is invalid. The statement commits The Genetic Fallacy.
Example 4 for (b): “I know evolution is true because I was taught it all my life in school”. Just because you were taught something all your life, doesn’t make it necessarily true! After all, for centuries they taught the Earth is flat.
Just because they taught it, it didn’t make it true.
4. Fallacies of Relevance
This is an argument whose conclusion is simply not relevant to its premise. Such fallacies include:
The genetic fallacy
The ad hominem fallacy
Irrelevant thesis
Straw-man
Several types of faulty appeals
The genetic fallacy
The ad hominem fallacy
Irrelevant thesis
Straw-man
Several types of faulty appeals
5. Appeal to ignorance
This is when a position is claimed to be true simply because it has not been proven false.
For example: “There must be life in out space. No one has ever proven that there isn’t“. Just because no one has been able to disprove a claim does not mean the claim is true. An appeal to ignorance can always be rebutted by an appeal to ignorance. You can respond by saying “There cannot be life in outer space since no one has ever proved that there is“. The lack of evidence AGAINST a position is not the same as evidence FOR a position.
For example: “There must be life in out space. No one has ever proven that there isn’t“. Just because no one has been able to disprove a claim does not mean the claim is true. An appeal to ignorance can always be rebutted by an appeal to ignorance. You can respond by saying “There cannot be life in outer space since no one has ever proved that there is“. The lack of evidence AGAINST a position is not the same as evidence FOR a position.
6. Appeal to the many or majority
This is a subclassification of the faulty appeal to authority. This fallacy is committed when someone argues that a position must be true because a majority of people believe it. The appeal to the majority is often combined with the “appeal to the one“; this is when someone appeals to a majority of expects saying “How could all those scientists be wrong about evolution“.
7. Appeal to the one
A subclass of the faulty appeal to authority. It refers to the fallacy of saying that something must be true simply because an expert says it is. However, even experts are occasionally mistaken, so their opinions should not be taken as unquestionable. This is especially evident in cases where other experts in the field disagree. Just remember “For every expect, there is an equal and opposite expert“. No mere human knows everything, and therefore we should never simply accept a claim as infallibly true if it is simply the opinion of a fallible expect.
8. Appeal to Authority
It is a faulty appeal to authority when someone argues that a claim must be true simply because someone (or a group of people) say so. The thing to remember about all appeals to authority is that an argument should really be evaluated on its internal merit, not on the person making it. The following belongs to this category:
Appeal to many (also known as appeal to the majority)
Appeal to the one
An evolutionist may say: “The universe, to the vast majority of scientists, is naturally, not supernaturally, designed“. This is the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is also the fallacy of appeal to majority and it is rationally irrelevant. At one time, the majority of scientists believed the sun and planets revolved about the earth – but that didn’t make it so.
See also “Appeal to the one”
See also “Appeal to the majority“
Appeal to many (also known as appeal to the majority)
Appeal to the one
An evolutionist may say: “The universe, to the vast majority of scientists, is naturally, not supernaturally, designed“. This is the fallacy of appeal to authority. It is also the fallacy of appeal to majority and it is rationally irrelevant. At one time, the majority of scientists believed the sun and planets revolved about the earth – but that didn’t make it so.
See also “Appeal to the one”
See also “Appeal to the majority“
9. Fallacies of Presumption
A fallacy of presumption is an argument that is faulty because it contains one or more unproven or unfounded assumptions. There are many fallacies in this category:
Sweeping generalization
Hasty generalization
Bifurcation
Begging the question
Question-begging epithet
Complex question
“No true Scotsman”
Special pleading
False analogy
False cause
Slippery slop
Sweeping generalization
Hasty generalization
Bifurcation
Begging the question
Question-begging epithet
Complex question
“No true Scotsman”
Special pleading
False analogy
False cause
Slippery slop
10. The Fallacy of Faulty Appeal
This is committed when a person appeals to something or someone that is not really relevant to the claim under investigation. Several fallacies fall under this category:
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to pity
Appeal to fear
Appeal to mob
Appeal to ignorance
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to pity
Appeal to fear
Appeal to mob
Appeal to ignorance
11. The Fallacy of Reification
This is a subcategory of the fallacy of ambiguity and it’s also known as the Bait-and-Switch. This is committed when a person attributes a concrete and often personal characteristic to a conceptual abstraction. Reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry, but should not be used in logical argumentation because it is ambiguous and can obscure important issues. Evolutionists frequently commit this fallacy, particularly with the concepts of nature, evolution, evidence, and science.
Example 1: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature“. Nature is a concept, a name we give to the sum total of the sequence of events in the universe. Nature cannot be “fooled” as if it had a mind.
Example 2: “Even while Joe was home, his job was calling him, luring him back to the office“. Clearly the job was not calling anyone.
Example 3: “Nature selects those individuals who are most fit“. But nature has neither mind nor choice and thus cannot literally select anything.
Example 4: “Evolution figured out how to get around these problems“. But evolution cannot think!
Example 5: “Natural selection guided the development of all the species we see on earth“. Natural selection is a concept; it cannot literally guide anything!
Example 6: “Science is atheistic in its outlook and procedures“. But science has no beliefs about God, or anything else!
Example 7: “The evidences speaks for itself“. Evidence does not actually speak, only people do.
Example 8: “We must interpret Scripture in light of what ‘science’ says“. Science is a conceptual tool and doesn’t actually say anything! Evolutionists may avoid the fallacy of reification by rephrasing their statement as:”Scripture must be interpreted to match the opinion of the majority of scientists“. But this replaces one fallacy with another. It is now the fallacy of appeal to majority or the fallacy of appeal to authority. The faulty appeal is often disguised by its wording; some might say “We must interpret Scripture in light of scientific knowledge“. But what is considered “knowledge” differs from person to person. So they really mean “what is considered scientific knowledge by the majority of scientists“. Again back to the fallacy of appeal to majority the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example 9: “God has also revealed Himself in nature. Since God cannot lie, the Bible and nature must agree“. Such statements are common among theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists. Once again we see the fallacy of reification – nature treated as if it were a person that could have a position on a topic. Another problem with this view is a category mismatch: nature is not propositional truth. Nature cannot literally agree with the Bible. It’s really “what the majority of scientists say about nature” that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists believe we should interpret the Scriptures to match. And we’ve already seen the problems with this view. But perhaps the most intriguing thing about this claim is that it is self-refuting. Suppose we asked an advocate of this view, “How do you know that God has revealed Himself in nature? And how do you know God is self-consistent?” The only rationally objective response he could give is “Well, the Bible says much. Romans 1 teaches that God has revealed Himself to everyone“. But now he is in quite a bind, because only if we take the Bible in a natural way would we conclude that God has revealed Himself in nature. If Romans 1 were not literally true, then there would be no reason to believe that God has actually (literally) revealed Himself in nature. So the view that we should reject a natural reading of the Bible in light of natural revelation presupposes a natural reading of the Bible! It is self-refuting.
Example 1: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature“. Nature is a concept, a name we give to the sum total of the sequence of events in the universe. Nature cannot be “fooled” as if it had a mind.
Example 2: “Even while Joe was home, his job was calling him, luring him back to the office“. Clearly the job was not calling anyone.
Example 3: “Nature selects those individuals who are most fit“. But nature has neither mind nor choice and thus cannot literally select anything.
Example 4: “Evolution figured out how to get around these problems“. But evolution cannot think!
Example 5: “Natural selection guided the development of all the species we see on earth“. Natural selection is a concept; it cannot literally guide anything!
Example 6: “Science is atheistic in its outlook and procedures“. But science has no beliefs about God, or anything else!
Example 7: “The evidences speaks for itself“. Evidence does not actually speak, only people do.
Example 8: “We must interpret Scripture in light of what ‘science’ says“. Science is a conceptual tool and doesn’t actually say anything! Evolutionists may avoid the fallacy of reification by rephrasing their statement as:”Scripture must be interpreted to match the opinion of the majority of scientists“. But this replaces one fallacy with another. It is now the fallacy of appeal to majority or the fallacy of appeal to authority. The faulty appeal is often disguised by its wording; some might say “We must interpret Scripture in light of scientific knowledge“. But what is considered “knowledge” differs from person to person. So they really mean “what is considered scientific knowledge by the majority of scientists“. Again back to the fallacy of appeal to majority the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example 9: “God has also revealed Himself in nature. Since God cannot lie, the Bible and nature must agree“. Such statements are common among theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists. Once again we see the fallacy of reification – nature treated as if it were a person that could have a position on a topic. Another problem with this view is a category mismatch: nature is not propositional truth. Nature cannot literally agree with the Bible. It’s really “what the majority of scientists say about nature” that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists believe we should interpret the Scriptures to match. And we’ve already seen the problems with this view. But perhaps the most intriguing thing about this claim is that it is self-refuting. Suppose we asked an advocate of this view, “How do you know that God has revealed Himself in nature? And how do you know God is self-consistent?” The only rationally objective response he could give is “Well, the Bible says much. Romans 1 teaches that God has revealed Himself to everyone“. But now he is in quite a bind, because only if we take the Bible in a natural way would we conclude that God has revealed Himself in nature. If Romans 1 were not literally true, then there would be no reason to believe that God has actually (literally) revealed Himself in nature. So the view that we should reject a natural reading of the Bible in light of natural revelation presupposes a natural reading of the Bible! It is self-refuting.
12. The Fallacy of Equivocation
This is a subcategory of the fallacy of ambiguity and it’s also known as the Bait-and-Switch or the fallacy of four terms. This fallacy is committed when the meaning of a word is shifted in the course of an argument. This is one of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists when the world “evolution” is used. Evolution simply means “change” in a general sense, or it can refer to the idea that life is descended from a common ancestor. Either meaning is legitimate, but the two should not be mixed within an argument as follows:
Example 1: “Creationists do not believe in evolution. But evolution happens – everyday things change. So it is absurd for creationists to deny evolution”. The word evolution is used twice in this sentence. The first time it’s simply used to mean “change” whilst the 2nd time referred to the common descent. This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. Clearly, there is nothing contradictory about denying some kinds of alleged change (common descent) while accepting other kinds of change.
Example 2: “Evolution is a fact, we see it in animals as they adapt to their environment !”. The first part of this statement is referring to allegedly idea where animals change from one kind to another (common descent) whilst the 2nd part is referring to the observable small variation within the kind. This is also known as the bait-and-switch fallacy. Evolutionists use a known scientific observation and then later switch to another meaning to promote common descent. This kind of argument is usually presented due to ignorance of the theory or just a dirty trick. Unfortunately, in my experience it’s usually the latter.
Example 3: “Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; it has allowed us to develop technology, and even to put men on the moon. So why would people deny the science of evolution?”. The argument equivocates on the word “science” which can either mean operational science or origins science. Operation science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for technology. Origins science is an attempt to understand past events in light of present evidence; it’s much more easily tainted by historical bias than operation science and is not directly testable or repeatable. The two types of science should not be mixed within an argument.
Example 1: “Creationists do not believe in evolution. But evolution happens – everyday things change. So it is absurd for creationists to deny evolution”. The word evolution is used twice in this sentence. The first time it’s simply used to mean “change” whilst the 2nd time referred to the common descent. This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. Clearly, there is nothing contradictory about denying some kinds of alleged change (common descent) while accepting other kinds of change.
Example 2: “Evolution is a fact, we see it in animals as they adapt to their environment !”. The first part of this statement is referring to allegedly idea where animals change from one kind to another (common descent) whilst the 2nd part is referring to the observable small variation within the kind. This is also known as the bait-and-switch fallacy. Evolutionists use a known scientific observation and then later switch to another meaning to promote common descent. This kind of argument is usually presented due to ignorance of the theory or just a dirty trick. Unfortunately, in my experience it’s usually the latter.
Example 3: “Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; it has allowed us to develop technology, and even to put men on the moon. So why would people deny the science of evolution?”. The argument equivocates on the word “science” which can either mean operational science or origins science. Operation science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for technology. Origins science is an attempt to understand past events in light of present evidence; it’s much more easily tainted by historical bias than operation science and is not directly testable or repeatable. The two types of science should not be mixed within an argument.
13. Uniformity of Nature
Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature upon which all science and tehcnology depends. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Evolutionists are able to do science and gain knowledge only because they are inconsistent, professing to believe in evolution while accepting the principles of biblical creation.
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen 8:22 or Jer 33:20-21). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So I expect it always will“. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity (although even this knowledge is based on the uniformity of physics and chemistry in the brain to give us a reliable memory of the past), but how do we know that in the future there will be uniformity, unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (ie. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experiences as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity – a vicious circular argument.
The consistent Christian can use past experience as a guide for what is likely to happen in the future, because God has promised us that (in certain ways) the future will reflect the past (Gen 8:22 or Jer 33:20-21). But how can those who reject Genesis explain why there should be uniformity of nature? How would an evolutionist respond if asked, “Why will the future reflect the past?”
One of the most common responses is: “Well, it always has. So I expect it always will“. But this is circular reasoning. I’ll grant that in the past there has been uniformity (although even this knowledge is based on the uniformity of physics and chemistry in the brain to give us a reliable memory of the past), but how do we know that in the future there will be uniformity, unless I already assumed that the future reflects the past (ie. uniformity)? Whenever we use past experiences as a basis for what is likely to happen in the future, we are assuming uniformity. So when an evolutionist says that he believes there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he’s trying to justify uniformity by simply assuming uniformity – a vicious circular argument.
14. The “no true Scotsman” Fallacy
Subcategory of the Fallacies of Presumptions and could be considered a sub-category of Begging the Question
The fallacy is committed when someone attempts to protect his claim from counter-argument by defining a term in a biased way (which begs the question). The fallacy begs the question by simply defining a true Scotsman in such a way that the claim is assumed to be true. It amounts to saying “A true Scotsman does not put sugar on his porridge, because otherwise, he wouldn’t be a true Scotsman“. Since the premise and conclusions are equivalent, the argument begs the question. For example:
E = “No scientists believes that God created in six days”
C = “The scientists at Answers in Genesis believe God created in six days”
E = “Well, no real scientist believes that God created in six days”
E = “No peer-reviewed science journal would accept a creationist paper”
C = “The Answers Research Journal accepts creation papers all the time”
E = “Well, no reputable journal would accept a creationist paper”
Both the above arguments commit the “no true Scotsman fallacy“. We could equally well say, “Actually, no real scientist believes in evolution. And no reputable journal would publish an evolutionary paper”
The fallacy is committed when someone attempts to protect his claim from counter-argument by defining a term in a biased way (which begs the question). The fallacy begs the question by simply defining a true Scotsman in such a way that the claim is assumed to be true. It amounts to saying “A true Scotsman does not put sugar on his porridge, because otherwise, he wouldn’t be a true Scotsman“. Since the premise and conclusions are equivalent, the argument begs the question. For example:
E = “No scientists believes that God created in six days”
C = “The scientists at Answers in Genesis believe God created in six days”
E = “Well, no real scientist believes that God created in six days”
E = “No peer-reviewed science journal would accept a creationist paper”
C = “The Answers Research Journal accepts creation papers all the time”
E = “Well, no reputable journal would accept a creationist paper”
Both the above arguments commit the “no true Scotsman fallacy“. We could equally well say, “Actually, no real scientist believes in evolution. And no reputable journal would publish an evolutionary paper”
15. The Fallacy of false-cause
(Also known as the “Reductio ad Hitlerum” and closely linked with the Fallacy of Irrelevance)
It is committed when someone concludes an incorrect cause-and-effect relationship between two events. For example: “Fossils can be arranged in sequence from simpler to more complex. It is therefore clear that the more complex forms evolved from the simpler forms“. The fact that some fossils come before others in a sequence does not imply that they caused the others. Another example “Creation is becoming more popular in the United States, and test scores are dropping dramatically. Clearly creationism is destructive to education!“. The idea that the first event caused the second does not follow, and so the argument is a false-cause fallacy.
It is committed when someone concludes an incorrect cause-and-effect relationship between two events. For example: “Fossils can be arranged in sequence from simpler to more complex. It is therefore clear that the more complex forms evolved from the simpler forms“. The fact that some fossils come before others in a sequence does not imply that they caused the others. Another example “Creation is becoming more popular in the United States, and test scores are dropping dramatically. Clearly creationism is destructive to education!“. The idea that the first event caused the second does not follow, and so the argument is a false-cause fallacy.
16. The Fallacy of False Analogy
This is when a comparison is made between two things that are alike in only trivial ways that are not relevant to the conclusion. For example: “Evolution is a fact in the same way the theory of gravity is a fact. Do you also reject gravity?”. Gravity is observable and testable whilst evolution is not. This is a false analogy. An evolutionist might also say “Your message is similar to asking us to believe the world is flat or that the sun revolves about the earth despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary”. But the idea of a flat earth and geocentric solar system can be falsified by operation science in the present and so it would be absurd to embrace such ideas. But biblical creation is about the past; it is not falsified by the observations in the present (in fact it is consistent with them).
17. Complex Question
This is the interrogative form of begging the question. This is when a question contains an unproved assumption. For example: “Do you still beat your wife?“. A complex question should really be divided into separate questions (1) “Did you even beat your wife?” (2) “If so, do you still continue to do so?“. This is why the question is complex. The evolutionist will raise a similar question “Why are you creationists against science?” But creationists are not against science so the question commits the complex question fallacy. Here is another example: “Which of the two contradictory stories of creation in Genesis do you accept?“. But there is only one account of creation and there are no contradictions within it.
18. Question-Begging epithet
Subcategory of the Fallacies of Presumptions
This is when someone imports biased (and often emotional) language to support a conclusion that is logically unproved. The idea is to persuade someone using biased language rather than logic. Watch out for words such as “ignorant”, “arrogant”, “dishonest”, “stupid”, “gullible” etc.
This is when someone imports biased (and often emotional) language to support a conclusion that is logically unproved. The idea is to persuade someone using biased language rather than logic. Watch out for words such as “ignorant”, “arrogant”, “dishonest”, “stupid”, “gullible” etc.
19. Relativism
This is the belief that truth is “relative“. That it varies from person to person. Relativism includes the idea that there are no absolutes. But the proposition that “there are no absolutes” is itself an absolute proposition. Relativists assert that it is absolutely true that truth is not absolute. This is a self-defeating philosophy. If relativism were absolutely true, it would lead to the consequence that it cannot be absolutely true. So , if it were true, it would be false; therefore it is false.
A relativist asserts that there are no absolutes and that truth is subjective; “my truth is not your truth“. However, all logical reasoning presupposes that there are absolutes and that there are absolutes and that truth is objective. The law of non-contradiction, for example, would be meaningless if truth varied from person to person. Relativists can be very irritating because they have essentially given up the laws of logic, yet they expect everyone else to abide by them. This obvious inconsistency should be pointed out to the relativist. “If what you’re saying is true, then why are you debating with me? How can you say that my position is wrong if truth is relative to the individual?”
See “Empiricism”
See “Naturalism”
A relativist asserts that there are no absolutes and that truth is subjective; “my truth is not your truth“. However, all logical reasoning presupposes that there are absolutes and that there are absolutes and that truth is objective. The law of non-contradiction, for example, would be meaningless if truth varied from person to person. Relativists can be very irritating because they have essentially given up the laws of logic, yet they expect everyone else to abide by them. This obvious inconsistency should be pointed out to the relativist. “If what you’re saying is true, then why are you debating with me? How can you say that my position is wrong if truth is relative to the individual?”
See “Empiricism”
See “Naturalism”
20. Rational thinking
If evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival values in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thousands are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true”, not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequences of blind chemistry.
How can we even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance as evolutionists say, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions.
Whenever non-Christian asks you to be rational, you should ask him “Why?” Only in a Christian worldview do we have a moral obligation to follow the laws of logic (which themselves only make sense in a biblical worldview.
An evolution may say “I believe in naturalism and that all things are observed by the senses“, the answer by a Christian should/can be “I don’t accept your belief in naturalism or your belief that all things must be observed by the senses. In fact if (for the sake of argument) naturalism were true, you couldn’t have laws of logic anyway since they are not part of nature. You say you only believe things observed by your senses; if that’s true, then you can’t believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses. Logical reasoning would be impossible if y our beliefs were true. So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only makes sense in biblical creation is true“. This response makes use of the ultimate proof. As such, there can be no rational rebuttal.
See “Uniformity of Nature”
How can we even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance as evolutionists say, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions.
Whenever non-Christian asks you to be rational, you should ask him “Why?” Only in a Christian worldview do we have a moral obligation to follow the laws of logic (which themselves only make sense in a biblical worldview.
An evolution may say “I believe in naturalism and that all things are observed by the senses“, the answer by a Christian should/can be “I don’t accept your belief in naturalism or your belief that all things must be observed by the senses. In fact if (for the sake of argument) naturalism were true, you couldn’t have laws of logic anyway since they are not part of nature. You say you only believe things observed by your senses; if that’s true, then you can’t believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses. Logical reasoning would be impossible if y our beliefs were true. So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only makes sense in biblical creation is true“. This response makes use of the ultimate proof. As such, there can be no rational rebuttal.
See “Uniformity of Nature”
21. Reductio ad absurdum
“reducing to absurdity“. In this type of consistency a principle taken to its logical conclusion will yield an absurd result. Evolutionists will want to take a philosophy only so far, and then inconsistently switch to another.
For example, using this principle (Reductio ad absurdum), you can refute empiricism. By this standard to it’s logical conclusion, we would eventually have to apply it to empiricism itself. If empiricism were true, we could never know that it was true since empiricism ITSELF has not been observed. Empiricism leads to the absurd conclusion that we cannot actually KNOW anything.
See “Empiricism”
See “Naturalism”
See “Relativism”
For example, using this principle (Reductio ad absurdum), you can refute empiricism. By this standard to it’s logical conclusion, we would eventually have to apply it to empiricism itself. If empiricism were true, we could never know that it was true since empiricism ITSELF has not been observed. Empiricism leads to the absurd conclusion that we cannot actually KNOW anything.
See “Empiricism”
See “Naturalism”
See “Relativism”
22. Naturalism
The believe that nature is all that there is. All life is the result of the laws of nature acting over time. In some cases, scientists prefer methodological naturalism rather than metaphysical naturalism. Methodological Naturalism is the belief that science should be conducted as if nature were all that there is, regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Metaphysical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all there is, and that is usually what is meant by the term “naturalism”.
A number of evolutionists accept naturalism as a presupposition, but this is certainly not a precondition for being able to understand the universe. For most evolutionists, naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism, is accepted without justification.
Any philosophy that arbitrarily dismisses possibilities that are potentially true is a bad philosophy. Naturalism arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of a supernatural origin and is thus a bad philosophy. The Bible teaches that in Christ are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col.2:3), and therefore we should not be robbed of such treasures by being taken in by secular philosophies like naturalism. Such philosophy is “after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col 2:8 KJV).
Example 1: Suppose an evolutionist said “I believe in naturalism. Show me logically how the earth could possibly be 6,000 years old but you can’t invoke supernatural – because I don’t believe in things that you can’t observe with your senses“. If nature is all that there is, then laws of logic cannot exist, since they are not part of nature. After all, you can’t stub your town on a law of logic, or pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator. A possible response would be: “I don’t accept your belief in naturalism, or your belief that all things must be observed by the senses. In fact, if naturalism were true, you couldn’t have laws of logic anyway since they are not part of nature. You say you only believe things observed by your senses; if that’s true, then you can’t believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses; Logical reasoning would be impossible if your beliefs were true. So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only make sense if biblical creation is true“.
Example 2: “Evolution must be true, because it is the only naturalistic way that life could come about“.The bias here is that naturalism is true. We must expose this bias and force the evolutionist to (attempt to) defend it. We can use the “don’t answer, answer” strategy to do this: “But, sir, I do not accept naturalism. In fact, if naturalism were true it would be impossible to prove anything since there would be no basis for laws of logic“.
Consider this statement by (evolutionist) Richard Lewontin:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment of materialism.
It is not the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal word, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
(Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.31)
See “Reductio ad absurdum”
See “Empiricism”
See “Relativism”
A number of evolutionists accept naturalism as a presupposition, but this is certainly not a precondition for being able to understand the universe. For most evolutionists, naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism, is accepted without justification.
Any philosophy that arbitrarily dismisses possibilities that are potentially true is a bad philosophy. Naturalism arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of a supernatural origin and is thus a bad philosophy. The Bible teaches that in Christ are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col.2:3), and therefore we should not be robbed of such treasures by being taken in by secular philosophies like naturalism. Such philosophy is “after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col 2:8 KJV).
Example 1: Suppose an evolutionist said “I believe in naturalism. Show me logically how the earth could possibly be 6,000 years old but you can’t invoke supernatural – because I don’t believe in things that you can’t observe with your senses“. If nature is all that there is, then laws of logic cannot exist, since they are not part of nature. After all, you can’t stub your town on a law of logic, or pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator. A possible response would be: “I don’t accept your belief in naturalism, or your belief that all things must be observed by the senses. In fact, if naturalism were true, you couldn’t have laws of logic anyway since they are not part of nature. You say you only believe things observed by your senses; if that’s true, then you can’t believe in laws of logic since they cannot be observed by the senses; Logical reasoning would be impossible if your beliefs were true. So why do you ask me to be logical? Laws of logic only make sense if biblical creation is true“.
Example 2: “Evolution must be true, because it is the only naturalistic way that life could come about“.The bias here is that naturalism is true. We must expose this bias and force the evolutionist to (attempt to) defend it. We can use the “don’t answer, answer” strategy to do this: “But, sir, I do not accept naturalism. In fact, if naturalism were true it would be impossible to prove anything since there would be no basis for laws of logic“.
Consider this statement by (evolutionist) Richard Lewontin:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment of materialism.
It is not the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal word, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
(Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p.31)
See “Reductio ad absurdum”
See “Empiricism”
See “Relativism”
23. Empiricism
The belief that ALL knowledge is acquired by unbiased observation of the evidence around us. In other words, observation is the ULTIMATE standard by which ALL truth claims are tested. This in itself is a worldview! Many evolutionists are empiricist. We must eventually ask the empiricist HOW he/she KNOWS that “all knowledge is gained through observation”. Clearly this is not something that empiricist has observed (since knowledge cannot be “seen”). So how could anyone possibly know that empiricism itself is true, if all things are indeed known by observation? If empiricism is proved in some way other than through observation, then it refutes itself. If the empiricist’s ultimate standard did happen to be true, the empiricist could never actually KNOW that it is true; he could never prove it.And if a person’s ultimate standard is uncertain, then all his other beliefs (which are based on that standard) are called into question. Empiricism destroys the possibility of actually knowing anything.
See “Reductio ad absurdum”
See “Naturalism”
See “Relativism”
See “Reductio ad absurdum”
See “Naturalism”
See “Relativism”
24. Begging the Question
This is a subcategory of the Fallacies of Presumptions and it’s also known as “Circular Reasoning” or Tautology –This is when the conclusion of an argument is incorporated into one of its premises (or when the truth of a premise depends upon the conclusion).
Example 1: “How do I know evolution is true? Because it is a fact!“. This argument is asserting (A) that evolution is true on the basis of “(B) that it is a fact. But (A) is merely a restatement of (B). A person arguing this way has merely assumed what he is trying to prove and merely assuming something is no proof at all.
Example 2: “Miracles are impossible because they cannot happen“. The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premise.
Example 3: “Young-earth creationists are wrong because radiometric dating shows that rocks are billions of years old“. The problem with this argument is that young-earth creationists do not accept the assumptions that have gone into radiometric dating (see book “Thousands Not Billions” and “Radioisotope and the age of the earth vol II“). So by accepting that radiometric dating is reliable, the arguer has already assumed that young-earth creationists are wrong, and has THEN concluded that young-earth creationists are wrong. This begs the question.
It would seem that “begging the question” is not legitimate because it is arbitrary. We cannot merely assume as a premise what we are trying to prove. So when someone begs the question, we might response: “You have simply assumed what you are trying to prove. This is arbitrary. Do you have a reason for your conclusion, or have you simply arbitrarily asserted it?”
Example 1: “How do I know evolution is true? Because it is a fact!“. This argument is asserting (A) that evolution is true on the basis of “(B) that it is a fact. But (A) is merely a restatement of (B). A person arguing this way has merely assumed what he is trying to prove and merely assuming something is no proof at all.
Example 2: “Miracles are impossible because they cannot happen“. The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premise.
Example 3: “Young-earth creationists are wrong because radiometric dating shows that rocks are billions of years old“. The problem with this argument is that young-earth creationists do not accept the assumptions that have gone into radiometric dating (see book “Thousands Not Billions” and “Radioisotope and the age of the earth vol II“). So by accepting that radiometric dating is reliable, the arguer has already assumed that young-earth creationists are wrong, and has THEN concluded that young-earth creationists are wrong. This begs the question.
It would seem that “begging the question” is not legitimate because it is arbitrary. We cannot merely assume as a premise what we are trying to prove. So when someone begs the question, we might response: “You have simply assumed what you are trying to prove. This is arbitrary. Do you have a reason for your conclusion, or have you simply arbitrarily asserted it?”
25. The Fallacy bifurcation
This is a subcategory of the Fallacies of Presumptions. It is also known as the “false dilemma” and “the either-or-fallacy”. The fallacy is committed when two propositions are presented as if they were mutually exclusive and the only two possibilities, when in fact they are not. It could be that other options exist or that both are true. For example:“Either you live by faith, or you are a rational thinker”, “I cannot accept the Bible because I believe in science”, “Was the Bible given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) or was it written by men (Luke 1:3 and John 21:24)”; both possibilities can be true.
Also this fallacy is committed in the following statement: “Either the earth is old, or God created it with an appearance of age“. The earth is neither old, nor does it “look” old (since age is not something that can be seen). This is a presupposition.
Also this fallacy is committed in the following statement: “Either the earth is old, or God created it with an appearance of age“. The earth is neither old, nor does it “look” old (since age is not something that can be seen). This is a presupposition.
26. The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis
The straw-man argument can be considered a sub-class of the Irrelevant Thesis. This is when someone attempts to prove a conclusion that is not at issue. For example the evolutionist may say “Why is the universe ideally suited for life? Because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it”. It is true that if the universe were not suited for life we wouldn’t be here to observe it but this does not actually answer the question WHY the universe is suited for life!
27. The Fallacy of Mob Appeal
This is an attempt to persuade people (usually a large group of people) by using powerful feelings, rather than logic. For example an evolutionist may say “I say we don’t need God to know right from wrong. You have every right to follow your own standard! Don’t let others tell you what to do. It is your right to think for yourself!”. This is logically absurd and self-refuting. How could we possibly obey the instruction to not let others tell us what to do?
28. Faulty Appeal to Fear
This is a subcategory for the general fallacy of faulty appeal. This is when someone argues for a position on the basis that harm will come to you if you are not convinced. Evolutionists try to raise fear by claiming that creationists will not teach physics correctly such as the theory of gravity and all other empirically proven theories.
29. The Straw-Man fallacy
This can be considered a subclass of the Irrelevant Thesis fallacy. This is when a person misrepresents the position of his opponent, and then argues against this counterfeit (“straw man”) position. Usually an evolutionist would claim that a creationist will not teach or accept science when in fact creationist simply reject that evolution is a scientifically supported hypothesis.
30. The Fallacy of Ambiguity
Fallacies of ambiguity are arguments that are faulty because they use words or phrases that are unclear or have more than one meaning. The following are the six common fallacies under this category:
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Reification
Composition
Division
We only cover the one that is usually committed in apologetics:
Equivocation
Reification
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Reification
Composition
Division
We only cover the one that is usually committed in apologetics:
Equivocation
Reification
31. Laws of Logic
Rational reasoning is involved when using the laws of logic. Therefore, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws. The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. And we know (in a finite, limited way) how God thinks because He has revealed some of His thoughts through His Word. According to Genesis, God has made us in His image (Gen. 1:26) and therefore we are to follow His example (Eph 5:1). The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and thus the way He expects us to think. For example the law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion on how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), and all truth is in God (John 14:6; Col. 2:3), therefore, truth will not contradict itself. Since God is constantly upholding the universe by His power (Heb. 1:3), the consistent Christian expects that no contradiction will ever occur in the universe.
32. Law of Non-Contradiction
Does the Bible have contradictions? If so how do we know that a CONTRADICTION is WRONG?
Firstly, we reject the claim that the Bible has contradictions because it’s the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the Living God. Therefore, it cannot have any contradictions. However, a critic who rejects this claim would insist that the Bible is not TRUE and falsely assume it has CONTRADICTIONS. Well, the most interesting thing about this claim is that it backfires on the critic who makes it.
The reason for this is because we can only know that Contradictions are WRONG because of the Bible. But if the Bible is not true, then neither would be Contradictions. So, it’s ONLY if the BIBLE is true, would CONTRADICTIONS be UNACCEPTABLE. Therefore we cannot use CONTRADICTIONS to disprove the BIBLE.
But the critic would argue that the Bible is not the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God. If so, then we must answer the question of whether a contradiction is true or false from an evolutionary prospective which would not make sense. HOW would random chemical reactions that formed by one large accident question, understand, have an opinion or know whether a CONTRADICTION is true or false? In fact, WHY would it even care? From this worldview, a contradiction could actually be true, false or both since it’s meaningless.
However, The Bible says that all knowledge comes from God “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3 NKJV) and that if we REJECT biblical principles we are reduced to foolishness “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 NKJV). The Bible tells us that all truth is in God and that God cannot DENY – that means GO AGAINST – Himself “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 NKJV). So it makes sense that the truth cannot go against itself.
Therefore, the sovereign, eternal God is constantly UPHOLDING the entire universe by HIS POWER “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power…” (Hebrews 1:3 NKJV).
Consequently, we expect that NO contradiction could POSSIBLY happen ANYWHERE in the UNIVERSE at ANYTIME. The universe, unchanging LAW of Non-Contradiction comes from God’s self-consistent nature.
Therefore, the LAW of Non-Contradiction in itself proves that the Bible is true and that a contradiction cannot be used to disprove it otherwise we invoke this self-cancelling law.
Firstly, we reject the claim that the Bible has contradictions because it’s the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the Living God. Therefore, it cannot have any contradictions. However, a critic who rejects this claim would insist that the Bible is not TRUE and falsely assume it has CONTRADICTIONS. Well, the most interesting thing about this claim is that it backfires on the critic who makes it.
The reason for this is because we can only know that Contradictions are WRONG because of the Bible. But if the Bible is not true, then neither would be Contradictions. So, it’s ONLY if the BIBLE is true, would CONTRADICTIONS be UNACCEPTABLE. Therefore we cannot use CONTRADICTIONS to disprove the BIBLE.
But the critic would argue that the Bible is not the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God. If so, then we must answer the question of whether a contradiction is true or false from an evolutionary prospective which would not make sense. HOW would random chemical reactions that formed by one large accident question, understand, have an opinion or know whether a CONTRADICTION is true or false? In fact, WHY would it even care? From this worldview, a contradiction could actually be true, false or both since it’s meaningless.
However, The Bible says that all knowledge comes from God “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3 NKJV) and that if we REJECT biblical principles we are reduced to foolishness “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 NKJV). The Bible tells us that all truth is in God and that God cannot DENY – that means GO AGAINST – Himself “If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 NKJV). So it makes sense that the truth cannot go against itself.
Therefore, the sovereign, eternal God is constantly UPHOLDING the entire universe by HIS POWER “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power…” (Hebrews 1:3 NKJV).
Consequently, we expect that NO contradiction could POSSIBLY happen ANYWHERE in the UNIVERSE at ANYTIME. The universe, unchanging LAW of Non-Contradiction comes from God’s self-consistent nature.
Therefore, the LAW of Non-Contradiction in itself proves that the Bible is true and that a contradiction cannot be used to disprove it otherwise we invoke this self-cancelling law.
