(August 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm)catfish Wrote: Well, not all Christians believe that Jesus is God...


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."

---

It sounds to me like you missed my point completely.

It's in the nature of religious faith to indulge in special pleading, "my god is real and yours isn't, my scripture is the truth, yours is just made up fiction, etc". But the fallacy especially applies here because the line of reasoning is that only my favorite god can account for the logical laws of the universe yet no valid reason is ever offered by proponents as to why another god can't be substituted.

Waldork, who was especially fond of this line of thinking, was repeatedly asked why Allah, Nature's God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't do just as well. His response was to summarily dismiss every other god as either being imaginary or having never communicated to humanity through revelation.

While my summation of the argument is intentionally comical to underscore the point, this is, in fact the line of reasoning offered by proponents of presuppositionalism. The other gods don't count because they're not real. But my favorite god, whether it be Jesus, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because I say so.

This is special pleading. Regardless of whether you call your god Jesus or Yahweh, you want special treatment for your religious claims that you would never offer to any other religious claim.

(August 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

Goddamnit Goldfish. You may just have made Cthulhu wet himself. Or am I just committing the fallacy of throwing out a "red catfish"?

This is giving me flashbacks to that elunico thread

(August 12, 2012 at 2:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm)catfish Wrote: Well, not all Christians believe that Jesus is God...


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."

---

It sounds to me like you missed my point completely.

It's in the nature of religious faith to indulge in special pleading, "my god is real and yours isn't, my scripture is the truth, yours is just made up fiction, etc". But the fallacy especially applies here because the line of reasoning is that only my favorite god can account for the logical laws of the universe yet no valid reason is ever offered by proponents as to why another god can't be substituted.

Waldork, who was especially fond of this line of thinking, was repeatedly asked why Allah, Nature's God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't do just as well. His response was to summarily dismiss every other god as either being imaginary or having never communicated to humanity through revelation.

While my summation of the argument is intentionally comical to underscore the point, this is, in fact the line of reasoning offered by proponents of presuppositionalism. The other gods don't count because they're not real. But my favorite god, whether it be Jesus, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because I say so.

This is special pleading. Regardless of whether you call your god Jesus or Yahweh, you want special treatment for your religious claims that you would never offer to any other religious claim.

No, I didn't miss the point. I get it, I really do.

My point was that both "sides" do it. Albeit an atheist's presupposition is much smaller in scope.

(August 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)catfish Wrote: My point was that both "sides" do it. Albeit an atheist's presupposition is much smaller in scope.

Let me have a go at this. (I need the practice.) I'm going to diagnose:

Shifting of the Burden of Proof:
"The skeptic can't account for..."
a.k.a. "Neener, neener, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"

How'd I do?

(August 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)catfish Wrote: My point was that both "sides" do it. Albeit an atheist's presupposition is much smaller in scope.

And thank you for providing another demonstration of the ad hominem tu quoque (or "oh yeah, well you do it too") that always seems to work its way into a discussion of presuppositionalism.

The reason this is a fallacy is it's an attempt to justify one's own wrongdoing by accusing the "other side" of doing the same thing. The old saying is that "two wrongs don't make a right". Another part of the fallacy is that it's an accusation. Do we really do it too? Examples please.

(August 12, 2012 at 2:48 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm)catfish Wrote: My point was that both "sides" do it. Albeit an atheist's presupposition is much smaller in scope.

And thank you for providing another demonstration of the ad hominem tu quoque (or "oh yeah, well you do it too") that always seems to work its way into a discussion of presuppositionalism.

The reason this is a fallacy is it's an attempt to justify one's own wrongdoing by accusing the "other side" of doing the same thing. The old saying is that "two wrongs don't make a right". Another part of the fallacy is that it's an accusation. Do we really do it too? Examples please.

You still don't "get" my point.

If you can't argue without a logical fallacy, you shouldn't argue...

Cool. I'm learning something. How you doing, Kittyfish?

I'm fine, thank you. How are you?