Examples of Common Logical Errors Made by Atheists

The following are actual examples of logical errors that are regularly presented by Atheists, Evolutionists, Naturalists, Materialists, or Uniformitarians. Note that not all Evolutionists, Naturalists, Materialists, and Uniformitarians are non-Christians. The human mind is capable of maintaining several conflicting thoughts at the same time. It is neurosis, yes, but we all have a bit of inner conflict. The Holy Spirit is the One Who will deliver us from this.

Examples of Common Logical Errors Made by Atheists will be in red:


 

Here are two classic logical errors and examples of what it is to be irrational–also examples of how something that is irrational can seem to make sense at first glance. They use what appears to be a syllogism but with deeply flawed logic.

  1. If God is all good, He would destroy evil.
  2. If God is all powerful, He could destroy evil.
  3. Evil is not destroyed.
  4. Therefore, such a God Who is all good and all powerful does not exist.
  1. The God of the Bible is the author of everything.
  2. The God of the Bible is all good and incapable of creating evil.
  3. Evil is something.
  4. Therefore, Therefore God created evil in conflict to His supposed goodness.

Note, that any premise that is in any way shown to be based on any made-up story, arbitrary assumption, irrational thinking, or outright lie, makes either of these arguments invalid.

These two are used a lot, and people think that they are really brilliant when they say them, but there is so much that is irration about this that one would wonder if they ever studied logic at all (or what kind of a person was teaching the course).

  • The goodness of God is affirmed.
  • The reality of evil, in at least two definitions of the word, is affirmed.
  • That God is almighty is affirmed.
  • However, many assumptions are made in the premise statements above, and these invalidate the logic.
  1. The main problem with this is human ignorance coupled with human arrogance.
  2. If you check with the person constructing such a logical argument, you are likely to find that your definition of evil is quite different from their definition of evil. Their definition is likely synonymous with your definition of God’s judgment against evil. They have no problem with what you would call evil, that is, disobedience to God and rebellion against God. By your definition, they are evil in resisting God. By their definition, God is evil in bringing judgment on the Earth for all the rebellion and disobedience.
  3. Often, when we don’t understand something, it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, and we understand relatively little. Perhaps it might be well to accept that the God Who is the source of all wisdom might be wiser than His created beings.
  4. The assumption is made that God is not able and willing to put up with a time of some evil.
  5. There might be some things that we don’t yet know.  When we know more, we will understand better. God has only revealed a small portion of reality to us at this point.
  6. We know that the world was made perfect and good, but we don’t know God’s reason for allowing creation to fall.
  7. We do know that God seems to have a greater purpose. He knew that the fall would come before the creation began. Yet , He went ahead. We can tell from the prophesies that the final state of the creation is much higher than the original state. He made mankind a little lower than the angels but the final state is much higher, ruling and having authority to judge angels.
  8. The assumption is made that there is not something about the ultimate reality that didn’t make it absolutely necessary for God to follow the route that He followed in making a creation that He knew would fall.
  9. Part of this might have been that God wanted a creation who was capable of love. Love must be voluntary. Love for God is shown in submission and obedience. Therefore, the creation must be capable of both rebellion and disobedience or else incapable of love.
  10. Some suffering can lead to a higher good.
  11. There is an assumption that the Universe was created for the sole purpose of bringing pleasure to mankind. This is not true.
  12. Our understanding of good and evil is largely based on what God has revealed through the Bible and what He has written on our innermost minds. Our understanding is finite. Many things that we think are evil may have an ultimate good purpose. Good and evil are interpreted by God and His ultimate purposes for creation.
  13. God could eliminate all evil, but we have no way of knowing whether that act, in itself, would be evil.
  14. God is good and the only One Who is good and He is all goodness and the only source of goodness. Evil is the lack of goodness. Therefore, evil is the lack of God.
  15. Evil is failure to listen to God and to allow God to move through us in righteousness. Adam and Eve obeyed Satan rather than God and went out of the presence of God. Since they had been given authority over the rest of creation, all creation fell with them. And this fallen nature has passed from generation to generation. So all of creation is, to some extent, out of the grace (power for good) of God. However, God planned before creation to bring creation back under His grace. So, the world, as we now experience it, is fallen from its first state but will be restored and brought to a higher state than the first state.
  16. Note that, even for the church, it was necessary that there be a falling away first before the fullness of all things. We don’t know why
  17. The fullness of what God is doing won’t be understood until the end of the Ages of the Ages. At that time, His wisdom will be understood and we will be amazed by it.
  18. Evil is to God and God’s goodness what darkness is to light. Therefore, God is good despite evil.
  19. Those who follow Christ and who are led by Him have faith, which is a gift from God that comes to us when we hear His Voice, His Utterance, and we acknowledge Him. When we acknowledge Him as He speaks to us, He directs our path and He gives us this faith, which is a supernatural belief and trust in Him. So, though we only know the little that God has revealed to us, we trust God, knowing that He is good and that He has a plan that is good for the ultimate end of creation.
  20. Therefore, arguments against God based on the fallen state of the creation are not sound.

 

The following three arguments are also common but not sound:

  1. The biblical story of Adam says that he was created good.
  2. A person who was created good could not sin.
  3. The biblical story says that Adam sinned.
  4. Therefore, the biblical account is inconsistent.
  1. God could have made the world originally like Christians believe Heaven is to be.
  2. God didn’t do this.
  3. God is supposed to be good and wise.
  4. Therefore, either God is not good and wise or God doesn’t exist.
  1. God could have skipped creating Lucifer.
  2. God knew that Lucifer would fall and become Satan.
  3. God is supposed to be good and wise.
  4. Therefore, either God is not good and wise or God doesn’t exist.
  1. It is irrational to think that if we don’t fully understand something it doesn’t exist.
  2. There might be some things that we don’t yet know.  God has only revealed a small portion of reality to us at this point.
  3. We know that God doesn’t force His will on anyone. He will not, for instance, force you to do His will. If you chose to rebel or to fail to respect Him, acknowledge Him, and obey Him, He simply turns you over to your own mind, which is relatively useless without His Love flowing through it.
  4. There is obviously something about this that God has not yet revealed.
  5. We know that the world was made perfect and good, but we don’t know God’s reason for allowing creation to fall.
  6. We do know that God seems to have a greater purpose. He knew that the fall would come before the creation began. Yet , He went ahead. We can tell from the prophesies that the final state of the creation is much higher than the original state. He made mankind a little lower than the angels but the final state is much higher, ruling and having authority to judge angels.
  7. For these reasons, the arguments against God that are based on the fact that the fall happened, are not sound.

 

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artefacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

  1. As you can see, irrationality can come all stacked up or in clusters.
    1. Here we have the tactic of an attempt to switch the burden of proof. The proof of Jesus, to one who refuses to trust Him, is the creation itself. For one who is open-minded, the proof of Jesus is to turn to Him, submit their will to Him, and surrender to Him. Everyone who truly seeks Him in submission, respect, and sincerity, finds Him. There are no exceptions. Premise: We know this by revelation from the almighty, all-knowing God Who cannot lie.
    2. We have the straw man argument that is not stated but only implied that we believe because of various forms of evidence; however, it ignores the fact that we believe not because of physical evidence but by revelation because God leads us moment by moment.
    3. There is an argument from ignorance, which says that since we have not discovered it, it doesn’t exist.
    4. There is an outright lie that there is no evidence of Jesus Christ being executed when in fact there is more evidence for Jesus, His miracles, and the fact of His life and resurrection than there is for the existence of any other person who lived at the time including Caesar. (read)
    5. There is the arbitrary selective elimination of the evidence of the writings of the Bible, many of which mention the crucifixion.
    6. Last, but not least, is false bravado–boasting great confidence when there is no real reason to have any confidence in the thing being put forth by the Atheist.
  2. Note that this nesting of methods is very confusing and Satan uses this confusion to convince those who are not building on the Rock, Himself, Jesus Christ. For those who encounter this type of argument with a rationalized faith or through just observation plus logic, they are likely to be shaken by the massive number of confusing lies and tactics.
  3. Therefore, this argument is not sound.

 

  1. I have not seen any miracles.
  2. Scientists don’t write about any miracles in the scientific journals.
  3. Therefore, Naturalism must be taken as fact.
  1. This is what is known as an argument from ignorance. If you have not seen France, this doesn’t make France cease to exist nor does it negate everyone else’s experiences who have seen France.
  2. There is also circular reasoning. If any scientist were to write a paper about miracles that didn’t attempt to explain them away, they would never be published in the Secular Humanist scientific journals. Since one of the root criteria for being published is Naturalism, it is circular reasoning to use the fact that non-naturalistic articles are not published as a premise to support Naturalism.
  3. Therefore, this argument is not sound.

 

Another common argument is to point to some who were Christians who are now Atheists and who never knew God in any real way, though they may have enjoyed religion.

Although I went to a [a certain denominational] school, happily listened to Biblical stories, prayed, went to church, sang hymns and never openly challenged God’s existence until fairly recently, God has never revealed himself to me. So if God has not revealed Himself to me, how does He expect me to believe in Him and how can He “justly” punish me for not believing?

  1. This is an outright lie of saying that God has not revealed Himself negates the entire argument.
  2. Anyone who has read, or heard, any Bible at all has heard His Voice.This argument includes information that this person has happily listened to Biblical stories. Therefore, this person has heard God’s Voice.
  3. The fact that someone goes to church does not mean that person follows Christ. Nor does singing hymns, praying, or listening to someone tell stories from the Bible.
  4. Some organizations, as organizations, don’t recognize that God speaks. They teach against it. Some actually only serve a theory and a mental exercise rather than the real, living Christ. It is possible this person never even knew it was possible to know God.
  5. We know, by revelation, that He speaks to every person these ways. He says, “For the invisible things of God since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.” (some caveats about hearing God’s Voice)
  6. God’s revelation is progressive. If a person is very closed-minded toward God, God turns them over to their own corrupt mind and the judgments that are associated with following such a mind.
  7. If any person has in any way heard a follower of Christ speaking by the Holy Spirit, that person has heard Christ, in that person, revealed to them. (read)
  8. They may not have recognized it or acknowledged God. It is irrational to claim that something doesn’t exist because a person will not acknowledge it. This is even more irrational than an argument from ignorance that claims, “Whatever I have not personally experienced does not exist.”
  9. Therefore, their argument is not sound.

 

Note: Generally, it would be incompatible with what they are claiming (no God) to say that they once knew God, had a relationship with Christ, and were led by the Holy Spirit. There may be some who would state that they thought that they were led by God, thought that they heard His Voice, or that they felt what they thought was His Holy Presence, but now they have realized that they were tricked by their own minds.

  1. I was really into religion.
  2. I accepted Christ as my Savior and was as “saved” as anyone else. Then I got baptized. I got baptized in the Holy Spirit. I felt what I had thought was His Presence, seemed to have power for righteousness, felt that I was being led by God, and felt that He talked to me and answered my prayers.
  3. Then I went to college and got into science and found out that there is no God of any kind and that the creation story is a myth and the the biblical chronology is totally at odds with the billions of years that science has proven the Earth and the Universe to be.
  4. As a result, I know that my past experiences were not real and that there is no God.
  1. This is a case where the person is claiming to have all the evidence in favor of God but who has decided to believe the stories, assumptions, irrational statements, and outright lies that are taught in science classes in most Universities rather than actual experience of having God reveal Himself to them.
  2. There are some theologies that teach that once a person is born again they can never again deny that Jesus Christ is their Savior. However, this theology does require several assumptions. If the assumptions and interpretations that are added to Scripture are removed, then the theology dissolves. So, it is even possible that a person who was born again could turn from God, slowly walk away, and become an Atheist at some point, and that they could even now be fighting vehemently against God and His revelation and His work.
  3. Everyone who seeks God finds Him.
  4. Everyone who follows Jesus is led by Him. That is revelation moment-by-moment, immature though it may be.
  5. Therefore, this argument against God is not valid.

Note: Atheists have been successful using a two-pronged attack. They teach lies that imply that God doesn’t reveal Himself through Scriptures by false proofs (a separate subject but one that may have to be addressed with a person who has been fooled by these lies). At the same time, theyencourage sinful activity so that a student who engages in the sinful activity begins to have a wall of separation between God and themselves. They eventually can no longer hear His Voice, so it is very easy to accept the rationalizations against God.


 

This one is usually not stated, because it is obviously irrational. Instead it is used as a presupposition using assumptive language in an entire worldview/fake reality.

  1. If we can find life on other planets, this would prove that life on those planets was created by natural processes rather than being created.
  1. We have already found life on Earth and that does not prove that life on Earth was created by natural process rather than being created.
  2. If life were to be found on other planets, this would not prove that life on those planets was not created any than the life on Earth would prove that life on Earth was not created.
  3. For these reasons, this argument is not sound.

 

  1. Water is necessary for life.
  2. Therefore, if we can find evidence that water was once abundant on Mars, then we have proved that life could have existed on Mars.
  3. If we can prove that life could have existed on Mars, then we have proven that life did indeed exist on Mars.
  1. Just finding water does not prove that life could have existed on Mars.
  2. Just proving that life could have existed on Mars does not prove that it did.
  3. Therefore, this reasoning is not sound.

 

The following logical error is never stated because it would be too easy to challenge it if it were stated. What is done, it that this reasoning is used as a presupposition using assumptive language.

  1. We take, as axioms that don’t need to be proven, materialism and naturalism, which both have, as a component, the elimination of God as Creator.
  2. If we can make up stories that explain away the evidence that shows that the overall story of molecules-to-man evolution is impossible, then we have shown that molecules-to-man evolution is possible.
  3. If molecules-to-man evolution is possible, then we know that it happened since there is no other possibility and God has been eliminated by our axioms of materialism and naturalism.
  1. Calling materialism and naturalism “axioms” does not make them real. They are arbitrary assumptions, and it is therefore irrational to treat them as if they were facts.
  2. The premise about making up stories, though never stated as such, makes the premise false. Making up stories/rationalizations that explain away reality does not make reality go away.
  3. Therefore, this reasoning in not sound.

 

  1. We must take Naturalism as an axiom.
  2. The Premise: because, without it, you could not do science. Without Naturalism, there would not be laws of science.
  3. The Premise of the Premise: If we don’t assume Naturalism, then everything is magic and we can’t predict anything.
  1. Naturalism provides no mechanism that would possibly enforce the “natural laws of science” and make science possible.
  2. God, Who enforces all the “natural laws of science” is faithful and dependable, and this does provide a mechanism for these “laws.”
  3. Naturalism and God are mutually exclusive since Naturalism is the same as no-God.
  4. Every follower of Christ is led by Christ and Christ reveals Himself to them.
  5. Therefore, Naturalism is false and the argument is not sound.

 

  1. We must take Naturalism/Matrialism as an axiom.
  2. The Premise: Otherwise we won’t be scientific.
  3. The Premise of the Premise: because all scientists agree that we must accept Naturalism/Materialism.
  1. It is a lie to say that all scientists agree on this.
  2. Most of the founders of the branches of science did not believe in Naturalism/Materialism.
  3. Whether some group of people believe in something or don’t believe in something has no impact on reality.
  4. The Atheists have set up criteria and freely discriminate against scientists who don’t accept the theology of Naturalism, so the argument iscircular.
  5. This is an example of bandwagon (“Everybody’s doing it”), which is irrational thinking.
  6. Therefore, this logic is not sound.

 

  1. I observe Naturalism all around me.
  2. For this reason, Naturalism is fact.
  1. Naturalism means that God does nothing and God does not exist.
  2. Neither of these can be observed.
  3. Conclusion: So this is an outright lie making the premise false.
  4. Therefore, the entire argument is not sound.

 


 

Natural erosion points to an old Earth, deep space pictures confirm an old universe, biology suggests an old Earth, as does geology and many other fields.

  1. Here we have an example of tossing the elephant or throwing a lot of mud at the wall hoping that something will stick. (a tactic)
  2. This is also an example of several premises that are not themselves supported by anything.
  3. How does natural erosion point to an old Earth? If we assume no global flood and filter out all the problems with this story about an old Earth, then it does point to an old Earth. But it is irrational to assume no global flood and to filter the evidence to support a favored conclusions. The truth is that theevidence really points to a recent creation from nothing by an all-powerful God and that there was a catastrophic worldwide flood, and we know about the flood because God reveals it to us.
  4. Deep space discoveries are of no help to the old-Earthers.
  5. Natural erosion, for instance, the Grand Canyon, is on a scale that indicates a worldwide flood, not deep time. And erosion brings sediments and soluble materials such as salts into the oceans. We have about what you would expect for 4,000 years, but not at all what you would expect if the Earth were billions of years old. So, natural erosion points to a young Earth, not an old Earth.
  6. Biology doesn’t at all suggest an old Earth. Stories about molecules-to-man evolution can be told to suggest an old Earth, but those stories can’t hold up to scrutiny. That’s why evolutionists work so hard to try to make it illegal to hold them up to scrutiny. If we just take the rate of decay of the human genome and the fact than no universal information is ever added to the genome, we would realize that there is no way we could have been on the planet too long since the great flood of Noah. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: “If you can’t prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened.” By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.
  7. Geology shows a worldwide, catastrophic flood a few thousand years ago followed by one great glacier period that was caused by the amount of evaporation from a super-heated ocean coupled with the huge amount of volcanic dust blocking the Sun’s light after the great fountains of the deep burst forth.
  8. Many other fields have likewise been used by Atheists to try to prove an old-Earth, but none of them hold up to scrutiny either.
  9. When dealing with a hardened Atheist, trying to explain each one of these details is very time-consuming and leads to a ridiculous debate that goes something like this: “Tis so!” “Tis not!” They have been thoroughly brainwashed through the school systems. They think that everything they read in their textbooks is fact. If you answer the fool this way, you will look like you are as much a fool as the fool is.
    1. You can mention the fact that these things are not realistic, going out to Creation.com, ICR.org, AnswersInGenesis.org, or crev.info, but the point is that we believe because God speaks with us directly and this is what God says, and they have no logical argument that is not dependent on some form of arbitrary assumptions, irrational statement, made-up story, or outright lie.
    2. It’s nice that He gave us physical evidence just like He showed doubting Thomas his wounds, but the Atheist cannot be convinced by evidence.
  10. Therefore, this argument for an old Earth is not sound.

 

Like magic man poofing things into existence is not a made-up story?

  1. This is an example of straw man argument. God is not a magic man.
  2. This is also the tactic of ridicule.
  3. What would prevent the Almighty God from creating the Heavens and the Earth and everything in them, including all of the scientific laws, in six days? Nothing!
  4. What would prevent nothing from poofing everything into existence for no reason? The First Law of Thermodynamics–though unsupported stories are made-up to try to explain away this Law, to make an exception for certain Big Bang concepts.
  5. What would prevent everything material from having always existed? The Second Law of Thermodynamics–though unsupported stories are made-up to try to explain away this Law, to make an exception for certain Big Bang concepts.
  6. This short question also implies that revelation is a made-up story. That is totally irrational–a misuse of language.
  7. Therefore, this argument is not sound.

 

If you think that the science is wrong, please give evidence.

  1. This statement is often made, implying that stories of an old-Earth or evolution (this could be stories of anything) are science without showing that they are scientific in nature.
  2. In fact, science is used for historical research, and that science is real science. But there is no evidence for an old Earth or evolution that is not based on a faulty premise. (Note: If you ask for some evidence that molecules-to-man evolution actually happened or that the Earth is actually very old, they cannot provide it. You will get many false premises, and will need to refute each one.)
  3. Again, there is a subtle effort to use the tactic of shifting the burden of proof.
  4. Here also is the use of vagueness that is impossible to answer. Wrong about what? What is the definition of science that is being used? What evidence would be accepted to make this person have a change of mind?

 

How does Christ speak to you? Telepathy?

  1. There is nothing wrong with the question, but you can sense the sarcasm in it. As it turned out, this was the beginning of a game, a tactic. The tactic goes like this: “I will keep asking questions until I have something that I can argue with.”
  2. This was the answer given: “Christ speaks any way He wants to–many ways. Every Christian experiences this to the degree we are submitted to the Christ. There is a made-up story that tries to imply that we aren’t experiencing what we are experiencing, as irrational as such a story is. This is one more example of the fact that every evidence for an old Earth or for evolution consists of some combination of made-up stories, arbitrary assumptions, or irrational statements. Followers of Christ follow Christ Himself. He speaks to them and leads them. He reveals to them that the Bible is His Word without error.”
  3. If the implied logical argument would be “God can’t speak to you because He has no means by which to do so,” then the argument is not sound.

 

“any way he wants to” – does he leave voicemail? Or perhaps a Facebook wallpost?

  1. This is a poor attempt at sarcasm and ridicule as a tactic.
  2. There is no logical argument here, indicating either ignorance of how to proceed or frustration.

 

Whenever I ask Christians how they communicate with their God, they always brush the question off. They don’t communicate at all, they just infer things from the bible, or experience perhaps a rush of endorphins when they pray. Its not testable, and I don’t believe it.

  1. Here is another great example of tossing the elephant or throwing a volume of mud at the wall and hoping that something will stick. (Note: It is obvious that talking about each logical error will make communication impossible, so it is necessary to go for the root of the problem that undermines the entire worldview/fake-reality of the Atheist.)
  2. Here is an example of sweeping generalizations about “Christians” rather than focusing on the substance of the subject at hand.
  3. The remark about inference is a straw man tactic. God speaking is not inference. It is possible to infer things from the Bible. However, God speaks through the Bible. That requires no inference. And, not only that, but He confirms the fact that He speaks to us through the Bible, prophecy, Christ-followers speaking by the Holy Spirit as oracles of God, dreams, visions, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, etc., by telling us about these means of communication as He speaks to us right through the very words of the Bible.
  4. The “rush of endorphins” remark is also a straw man tactic. The fact is that God speaks a vision that includes all the spiritual senses, not just natural emotions or feelings.
  5. The “It’s not testable.” statement is an outright lie. Anyone can test it–unlike most lab experiments that require expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. Whoever seeks God in respect, submission, and sincerity, without giving up, will find Him. Jesus reveals to us, “My sheep hear My Voice.” That is an absolute. No one can have faith unless they here His rhema, His utterance. He speaks this to us through Scripture and confirms it by speaking through other means.
  6. The “I don’t believe it.” remark is an outright lie as well. God reveals to us that the Atheist already knows that He exists but they refuse to acknowledge Him and they are willingly ignorant.
  7. Therefore, this argument is not sound.

 

Since you use a computer, you must accept that the physics of semi-conductor devices is correct. To think, at the same time, that the physics of radiometric dating is wrong, is stark raving bonkers. Someone else commented: Was waiting for that very comment, bravo sir.

  1. Here is an attempt to use logic. Examine the structure.
    1. You attempt to use a computer, therefore, you must accept that the physics of the semi-conductor devices is correct.
    2. You accept that the physics of the semi-conductor devices is correct., therefore it is inconsistent to not accept the physics of radiometric dating.
  2. So what is wrong with this logic? It seems to make sense.
    1. It is a red-herring. The question is not the physics of radiometric dating.
    2. The questions are:
      1. Is it rational to throw out all the test results that don’t give the dates you want and to keep those results that give the dates that you want?
      2. Is it rational to use different assumptions when the test results come out as you would like them to come out and then to change those assumptions to explain away the evidence when the test results don’t come out as you would like?
      3. Why do objects that are tested, when we know how old they should show themselves to be (like at Mt. St. Helens which recently erupted) show dates that don’t make sense? Are we to assume that radiometric dating only works on the unknown but doesn’t work on things where we know the age?
      4. Is it rational to base the dates on arbitrary assumptions, assumptions that can be changed with the result of the tests showing much younger dates? Actually, that is circular reasoning.
    3. The phrase, “is stark raving bonkers.” is an example of emotional speech, an attempt at ridicule to bully into submission rather than to reason.
    4. Any one of these reasons will render the argument unsound.

 

Enlighten yourself please, it isn’t circular reasoning: A link was included to a bogus Atheist site that took a couple thousand words to fail to show that radiometric dating techniques are not using circular reasoning.

  1. The conclusion here, that radiometric dating doesn’t involve circular reasoning, is false. (read)(read)
  2. The premise (contained in the Atheist website–too lengthy to quote) was faulty in that the conclusion did not follow from the premise.
  3. The conclusion contradicts a known fact that God has revealed to us and therefore is impossible.
  4. Therefore, this argument is not sound.

 

Speciation over time will result in macro-evolution. This has been seen in the fossil record and by computer generated models.

  1. This statement begins with a conclusion in the first sentence with two premises in the second sentence.
  2. The first premise, “This [speciation leading to macro-evolution] has been seen in the fossil record” is false.
    1. The fossil record shows no evidence at all of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind of living thing. It just shows the kinds fully developed with some variation within kinds, as is evident also in living things today. We define kind as an original created kind, such as the dog kind that includes wolves, coyotes, labs, and poodles.
    2. The fossil record only shows variation within kinds. Kinds equate to something close to the family level.
  3. The second premise regarding computer-generated models is false.
    1. Computer generated models have been created to illustrate the story about speciation leading to macro-evolution, but they could not possibly prove or be evidence of speciation leading to macro-evolution. At best, they are sales tools.
    2. Those computer generated models are based on assumptions that are specially created to give credibility to evolution.
  4. Speciation is the loss of information.
  5. Evolution would require an information gain. The kind of information that would have to be added would be the Universal Information as described in the scientific Laws of Universal Information. And this kind of information is never generated by natural means. Information only comes from information.
  6. Note that both premises, the fossil record and the computer models are at a level of vagueness that they really would have no ability to provide any evidence of anything. This is an example of equivocation by using vague references as mentioned in the CEH Baloney Detector. (read)
  7. Therefore, this reasoning is not sound.

 


“Many of the rocks contain evidence that they were deposited in deep, generally tranquil water far from shore. The question is whether minimally seven miles of fine-grained sediments and volcanic rocks accumulated in only one and a half millenia. We would be talking about an average sedimentation rate of about 20 feet per year for 1,656 years! If these rocks were all deposited during a one-year planetary Flood, however, then the sedimentation rate was seven miles or at least 36,000 feet per year! Do Flood geologists really expect anyone to believe that?”

The assumption is that the sediment that is now seen is more than a catastrophic flood could possibly have laid down. This is clearly not the case, so not only is it an assuption punctuated by some emotional language, but it is, in fact, an outright lie (although possibly from honest ignorance of truth). (read)


 

The Gospel accounts of the locations, witnesses, and timing of the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus are contradictory, therefore, the Bible is not without error and contradiction.

The problem is an untrue premise. (read)


The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke don’t line up, therefore we should discard them.

The problem here is an untrue premise. The accounts do line up, but the skeptics are making assumptions. If the assumptions were true, these two accounts would not line up, but they are only arbitrary assumptions. (read)


 

The accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection don’t line up. Therefore, the Bible has errors.

The conclusion is not supported because the premise is not true. The accounts do line up, but assumptions are made by the skeptic. A very typical logical error is to try to show something to be impossible by selecting assumptions that would make the thing impossible. However, other assumptions would make it possible. Assumptions are not proof of anything, and insisting on certain assumptions is irrational. (read)(read)

Some Example Premises and Conclusions

Here is a list of premises all of which are true, though, for some of these, you may say, "So what could that prove?" "I read this in a textbook once." "I saw it on the news." "God cannot lie." "God has revealed to me that the Bible is His Word and that it is...

Read more ...

An Example of Logical Fallacy with an Occult Chemist

The occult chemist's comments are in red. The response is interlinear. This is what I mean about stories and irrational thoughts. That's all I ever get. I prefer to believe God. I answered your email inline. For me, God manifested life in the SAME way that it appears now and ever. I agree, though it...

Read more ...

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leave a Reply