(Re-posted from an earlier thread)
I recently saw a Non-Stamp Collector video on Presuppositional Apologetics and thought I'd like to try to catalog all the logical fallacies this argument for Christianity uses. I could use everyone's help to review it and see if I've missed any.
First, here's a source on what the argument is.
Argument from Ignorance:
"You can't explain the laws of logic"
Argument from Incredulity:
"I can't imagine any other way to account for the laws of logic except Jesus"
Bare Assertion:
"(Yahweh)'s existence accounts for the laws of logic."
Bare Assertion to justify a bare assertion:
"Only by assuming (Yahweh's) existence can we account for the laws of logic"
Circular Reasoning:
"(Yahweh's) existence accounts for reason and that's why we can reason (Yahweh) exists."
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
"Well, every philosophy is circular. You have unfounded presuppositions too. ...Do so! ...Do so!"
Special Pleading:
"None of the other gods can account for the laws of logic. They're not real. They're just made up. But Jesus, he's real."
Shifting of the Burden of Proof:
"The skeptic can't account for..."
a.k.a. "Neener, neener, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"
False Equivalency:
"Well, you have faith in all that science and evolution and stuff. That's no different than my faith in the Bible."
God-Verb-It:
OK, this technically isn't a logical fallacy but presenting it as an "explanation" for anything should be.
Raising the Bar:
"Explain why we use reason without using reason, otherwise, I'll say 'that's circular reasoning'."
Non-Sequitur:
If you can't account for the laws of logic, I'll take that as proof of Jesus.
I recently saw a Non-Stamp Collector video on Presuppositional Apologetics and thought I'd like to try to catalog all the logical fallacies this argument for Christianity uses. I could use everyone's help to review it and see if I've missed any.
First, here's a source on what the argument is.
Argument from Ignorance:
"You can't explain the laws of logic"
Argument from Incredulity:
"I can't imagine any other way to account for the laws of logic except Jesus"
Bare Assertion:
"(Yahweh)'s existence accounts for the laws of logic."
Bare Assertion to justify a bare assertion:
"Only by assuming (Yahweh's) existence can we account for the laws of logic"
Circular Reasoning:
"(Yahweh's) existence accounts for reason and that's why we can reason (Yahweh) exists."
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
"Well, every philosophy is circular. You have unfounded presuppositions too. ...Do so! ...Do so!"
Special Pleading:
"None of the other gods can account for the laws of logic. They're not real. They're just made up. But Jesus, he's real."
Shifting of the Burden of Proof:
"The skeptic can't account for..."
a.k.a. "Neener, neener, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"
False Equivalency:
"Well, you have faith in all that science and evolution and stuff. That's no different than my faith in the Bible."
God-Verb-It:
OK, this technically isn't a logical fallacy but presenting it as an "explanation" for anything should be.
Raising the Bar:
"Explain why we use reason without using reason, otherwise, I'll say 'that's circular reasoning'."
Non-Sequitur:
If you can't account for the laws of logic, I'll take that as proof of Jesus.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
