(September 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: ...for this fallacious line of reasoning:
Step 1: Assertion is made without supporting evidence
Alt Step 1: Definition is invented to suit step 2.
Step 2: The unproven assertion and/or contrived definition is used to prove something else.
We see this line of reasoning used a lot in some of the more popular philoso-babble arguments for Christianity.
"Moral goodness is grounded in the very nature of Yahweh. That's why everything Yahweh wills or does is good."
"Without Yahweh, there can be no absolute morality and since absolute morality exists, God exists, and this god is of course Yahweh, who else?"
I've been calling this "begging the question" but I realize that's not quite right. Or maybe it is? Please set me straight on this point.
Step 1 is a bare assertion fallacy.
Step 2 is unsound given the nature of the premise.
.
