BelieveTheSign

Logic and the Message: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Logic and the Message (view source)

Revision as of 05:32, 7 August 2016

6 bytes added ,  8 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
Listed below are a number of statements that have been made about this website, each of which is an illogical attack.  Most of these statements were made by ministers to keep their congregations in the dark.   
Listed below are a number of statements that have been made about this website, each of which is an illogical attack.  Most of these statements were made by ministers to keep their congregations in the dark.   
[[File:Logic.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Don't confuse the issue with facts!]]
[[File:Logic.jpg|250px|thumb|right|Don't confuse the issue with facts!]]
=Ad hominem=
=Ad hominem=


Line 15: Line 16:
Not only is this a logical fallacy that addresses none of the issues that have been raised, but also lumps all ex message believers into a very narrow, very negative stereotype that is, by its very generality, reckless, irresponsible, and false.
Not only is this a logical fallacy that addresses none of the issues that have been raised, but also lumps all ex message believers into a very narrow, very negative stereotype that is, by its very generality, reckless, irresponsible, and false.


=False dilemma or false dichotomy=  
=Equivocation=


Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one.
Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with words or phrases that have multiple meanings.


::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”
Example:


This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message cannot.
:''It's so sad when people have known the truth, walked in it for years, and then they walk away from the truth.''


=Reductio ad absurdum=
In this case, "truth" is used to refer to William Branham's message when, in fact, whether or not the message is truth is the issue that is being disputed.


Reducing the premise in an argument so that it leads to an absurd conclusion.
=False dilemma or false dichotomy=


::“''You don’t believe it because you didn’t see it? Well, in that case, you don’t have proof that you have a brain, and certainly don’t have proof that there is a God!''”
Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one.


The premise has been artificially reduced to ‘you don’t believe because you didn’t see it’. In reality there is a mountain of inductive evidence for the existence of your brain and God, and a mountain of inductive evidence to refute many message claims.
::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”


=Straw Man=
This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message cannot.
 
Attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position than the one his opponent actually holds, one that is easier to refute.
 
::“''These people attacking the message would have you believe that you should go back to the harlot… back to the denominational slop you come out of''.”
 
This is not the position of any message critic that I am aware of. The truth is simply that people in the message are following a false prophet and therefore are in a false system. Where they go when they leave is a matter of prayerful consideration, and is inherently individual. By the way, equating all churches with harlots and slop for the simple fact that they belong to a denomination is also fallacious, in case common sense didn’t kick in there automatically, as it should.


=Slippery Slope=
=Moving the Goalposts=
 
Argues that to accept A means that you must accept B, or Z, or some other extreme.
 
::“''You go clicking around on them websites and listening to the devil’s lies, you might just find yourself being an enemy of God, stuck with no way back''.”
 
Do I really have to explain why this is stupid? Which fallacy do I address first, the illogical connection between looking at a website and being an enemy of God, or the assertion that a website contains the “devil’s lies” without a single shred of evidence to back up such a monstrous claim?
 
=Moving Goalpost=


The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
The method of moving the criteria for “proof” out of the range of whatever evidence currently exists. If new evidence comes to light meeting the prior criteria, the goalpost is pushed further back. Sometimes impossible criteria are set up at the start for the purpose of denying an undesirable conclusion.
Line 83: Line 70:
In this case, attacks on the Bible are equated to attacks on William Branham and his message, even though they are entirely different.  The problem is that each issue, all of those related to the Bible and  each of those related to William Branham and his message, must be dealt with on their own merits.  As a result, the issues relating to William Branham - [[The Prophecies of William Branham|the accuracy of his prophecies]], his [[Credibility|credibility]] and [[List of Issues with the Message#Are William Branham's teachings in agreement with the Bible?|whether his teachings are in agreement with scripture]] - must be looked at independently and not confused or tied to the completely unrelated issue of Biblical accuracy.  We dealt with the [[Failed Prophecies|so-called "biblical inaccuracies" in another article]] and show that they are not what Voice of God Recordings stated that they were.
In this case, attacks on the Bible are equated to attacks on William Branham and his message, even though they are entirely different.  The problem is that each issue, all of those related to the Bible and  each of those related to William Branham and his message, must be dealt with on their own merits.  As a result, the issues relating to William Branham - [[The Prophecies of William Branham|the accuracy of his prophecies]], his [[Credibility|credibility]] and [[List of Issues with the Message#Are William Branham's teachings in agreement with the Bible?|whether his teachings are in agreement with scripture]] - must be looked at independently and not confused or tied to the completely unrelated issue of Biblical accuracy.  We dealt with the [[Failed Prophecies|so-called "biblical inaccuracies" in another article]] and show that they are not what Voice of God Recordings stated that they were.


=Equivocation=
=Reductio ad absurdum=
 
Reducing the premise in an argument so that it leads to an absurd conclusion.
 
::“''You don’t believe it because you didn’t see it? Well, in that case, you don’t have proof that you have a brain, and certainly don’t have proof that there is a God!''”
 
The premise has been artificially reduced to ‘you don’t believe because you didn’t see it’. In reality there is a mountain of inductive evidence for the existence of your brain and God, and a mountain of inductive evidence to refute many message claims.
 
=Slippery Slope=
 
Argues that to accept A means that you must accept B, or Z, or some other extreme.
 
::“''You go clicking around on them websites and listening to the devil’s lies, you might just find yourself being an enemy of God, stuck with no way back''.”
 
Do I really have to explain why this is stupid? Which fallacy do I address first, the illogical connection between looking at a website and being an enemy of God, or the assertion that a website contains the “devil’s lies” without a single shred of evidence to back up such a monstrous claim?


Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with words or phrases that have multiple meanings.
=Straw Man=


Example:
Attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position than the one his opponent actually holds, one that is easier to refute.


:''It's so sad when people have known the truth, walked in it for years, and then they walk away from the truth.''
::“''These people attacking the message would have you believe that you should go back to the harlot… back to the denominational slop you come out of''.”


In this case, "truth" is used to refer to William Branham's message when, in fact, whether or not the message is truth is the issue that is being disputed.
This is not the position of any message critic that I am aware of. The truth is simply that people in the message are following a false prophet and therefore are in a false system. Where they go when they leave is a matter of prayerful consideration, and is inherently individual. By the way, equating all churches with harlots and slop for the simple fact that they belong to a denomination is also fallacious, in case common sense didn’t kick in there automatically, as it should.


{{Bottom of Page}}
{{Bottom of Page}}
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/22302"