OK, what IS the right classification...

[DeistPaladin]

...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.

[Minimalist]

I've been calling this "begging the question"

I've been calling it "horseshit" but that is probably not the technical term.

[The Grand Nudger]

Begging the q or irrelevant conclusion, yeah.

Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. The ever popular "red herring" you see apologists throw around so often, all the while composing entire arguments out of them. No wonder the arguments smell like shit.

[Cinjin]

...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.

Regardless of what you want to name it, it's still the credulous man's argument - cyclical in nature and "evidenced" by faith.

Every argument regarding creation, sin, mankind, morality, etc will always comes back to one thing: Do you believe in God? Asking a christian to provide evidence for anything in the natural world without the cyclical argument is absolutely pointless. It is the primary support of their belief system. Which is why we keep hearing the same arguments decade after decade. While science and research continually offer the enlightened new ideas and concepts month after month, they are stuck in the dark ages with their one holy "irrefutable" argument.

I don't know that I'd call it begging the question, but I can see where you're coming from.

[theVOID]

...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.

[fr0d0]

It's an assertion different to your own position, that is incorrect according to your knowledge. You are asked to consider the alternate position if you wish to confront the logic of that position. Sure, no one is saying that that is your position. It may be totally rational and irrefutable, but still it is not where your knowledge leads to the starting point.

[Zen Badger]

It is a baseless position founded on a false premise.

There is an Absolute Morality,

I.e the holocaust is absolutely wrong therefore there is an absolute morality.

They seem to think that whatever they believe to be wrong is WRONG.

Pointing out to them the fact that there are plenty of people who think the holocaust was "a good thing" rather invalidates the claim to absolute morality just gets you accusations of being a holocaust supporter.

[DeistPaladin]

It's an assertion different to your own position, that is incorrect according to your knowledge. You are asked to consider the alternate position if you wish to confront the logic of that position. Sure, no one is saying that that is your position. It may be totally rational and irrefutable, but still it is not where your knowledge leads to the starting point.

We're not talking about personal opinions here but what constitutes proof of something.

The point I'm making is you can't use one opinion as "evidence" that another opinion is correct. It may be what you believe but you can't use beliefs as evidence.

Before you can say "A proves B" you have to first prove A.

[fr0d0]

Not personal opinion... but belief I think DP.

Neither of us have 'proof' or one of us wouldn't be able to sustain that belief. Hope that makes sense

[The Grand Nudger]

Hope in one hand, shit in the other.