It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument. I would refer that as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" type answer. I don't know if there's a name for that.

(September 7, 2021 at 10:48 am)Angrboda Wrote: It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument.  I would refer that as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" type answer.  I don't know if there's a name for that.

There is, and it’s called ‘Morton’s Fork’, a version of a false dilemma. It’s when two different observations are made to lead to the same conclusion. In this case:

Observation 1: Person dies.

Observation 2: Person lives.

Conclusion: Goddidit.

Boru

It also sounds like question begging as Janjr said.

Aristotle called it "petitio principii”.

Or, in English, assuming the initial point, or assuming the conclusion.

It also might be construed as a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In other words, no matter what the outcome, the person can draw a target around the results in order for it to fit their claim.

(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: I might be having a brain stall but I was trying to define or label a certain argument and I'm at a loss. Maybe you guys could help me out.

The feeling I get from it is, there is no "wrong" answer. For instance, in Mormonism, the big spiel for investigators to the religion is for you to read the entire Book of Mormon and then pray to know if its true or not. There's no "it's not" answer. If you pray and the Holy Ghost gives you a warm feeling, then you know it's true. If you pray but don't feel anything, or you pray to know if the book is a lie and get a good feeling for that, then you just did it wrong or you didn't humble yourself enough to be open to God's Spirit.

brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is).

(September 6, 2021 at 6:55 am)brewer Wrote: Person lives: God was watching over them, it's a miracle.

Person dies: God called them home for a reason.

So, what is this called? Help a guy out. Is it circular reasoning? Is it confirmation bias?

I'd  simply call it out as being  mental gymnastics of the delusional

(October 5, 2021 at 3:32 am)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote:

(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: I might be having a brain stall but I was trying to define or label a certain argument and I'm at a loss. Maybe you guys could help me out.

The feeling I get from it is, there is no "wrong" answer. For instance, in Mormonism, the big spiel for investigators to the religion is for you to read the entire Book of Mormon and then pray to know if its true or not. There's no "it's not" answer. If you pray and the Holy Ghost gives you a warm feeling, then you know it's true. If you pray but don't feel anything, or you pray to know if the book is a lie and get a good feeling for that, then you just did it wrong or you didn't humble yourself enough to be open to God's Spirit.

brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is).



So, what is this called? Help a guy out. Is it circular reasoning? Is it confirmation bias?

I'd  simply call it out as being  mental gymnastics of the delusional

Takes one to know one. Neener neener.

Boru

(September 6, 2021 at 7:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 6, 2021 at 7:35 am)Ten Wrote: brewer also posted an example of this same thing in the stupid stuff religious people say thread(in fact, it made me remember my trouble defining what this is).



So, what is this called? Help a guy out. Is it circular reasoning? Is it confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias.

I think confirmation bias means that you look at the set of data and you cherry pick parts of the data that supports your view and you dump the rest instead of including the entire data set in your research.


This sounds like that texas shooter thing Simon Moon mentioned.
It takes the form of:
This is the result, therefore, this is evidence that god did it.

It also sounds like a tautology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

(A V not A) -> C

Person 1 is alive or Person 1 is dead, therefore god exists.
When you evaluate the (A V not A) part, it is always TRUE.
Under no circumstances it becomes FALSE.