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 is obvious that God has designed tremendous ability for variation and adaptation into the information that He originally built into every kind of creature.
I do not see a conflict between evolution and God.
The problem is that God says that He created the Heavens and the Earth in only 6 days a few thousand years ago. There is no empirical science that conflicts with that. There are interpretations of the empirical data that do conflict with that, however. But there are also interpretations of the empirical data that do not conflict with what God says.
Both of these amount to the logical fallacy of hearsay if we take them too seriously, and interpretations are not facts that are suitable for a premise when talking about truth. When God speaks, it is absolute, which is what is needed if we are to talk about truth.
It is only you die-hard creationists who fanatically adhere to biblical ways in such a way that it becomes stupid in the end.
This is the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack. It presents no evidence for any claim and therefore is irrational. I’m trying to point this out as respectfully as I can.
How in the name of God can you believe that the history of the Israelites is the history of mankind?
That would be known as a straw man argument. Although, the history that God recorded about the Israelites is definitely part of history, it is not THE history of mankind.
Do you really believe that the earth is only about 6000 years old?
I believe God.
No! The earth is 1,400,000,000 (1.4 billion years) � old.
This is known as the fallacy of presumption or bare assertion. There is no evidence presented.
Are you a geologist, or, are you a forensic anthropologist? Do you own a University degree in Chemistry, Biology, Physics, or, Mathematics? Have you studied Quantum Theory?
This is known as the fallacy of appeal to false authority, although it is put into a question form. It is  fallacy of lack of relevance. There are experts on both sides of this issue with both opinions, so appeal to authority is fallacious.
If all the experts were in agreement that evolution was scientific fact, that might appear to some people to hold more weight, but it would still be the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority. All the experts were in agreement that the Sun went around the Earth every 24 hours, but that didn’t affect reality. As in that case, so in this case, if all the experts did agree (which they do not), it would still not change reality. The only legitimate authority in this instance is God, and He says that He created the Heavens and the Earth is six days.
We know more about the Universe than a million Christian Bibles!
I was discussing with an astrophysicist who made a similar claim. The problem is that this man believed in naturalism and in materialism, which both deny that existence of the spiritual realm. These two arbitrary assumptions rule out most of God’s creation plus they rule out God Himself. So, a person like this knows very little about the Universe. They have put on blinders to most of God’s creation and to God Himself.
It is impossible to deny evolution.
This is a bold assertion without proof. Can you provide absolute proof that particles-to-people evolution actually took place and that this is how all the various kinds of living things got here? That would be quite a task, but that is what is need to make this assertion.
Creationism is an abomination; an insult to a scientific logical mind.
That depends on how you define scientific. Perhaps a definition would be a good starting point, followed by what makes you think that it is an abomination.
Creationism does not a have solid foundation.
The fact that God created is based on revelation from God. God’s revelation is the only solid foundation for thinking. The only other alternatives are the lies of demons and the lies of the churning human mind. Either or these are lies. They are both making stuff up. Thought needs a starting point. It can start with God’s revelation or making things up. I think that making things up (lying) is an abomination and does not have a solid foundation.
The Bible can never be taken literally. It is more than 200 years since Science disproved all illusions to ignorant Christians regarding the real physical creation of man in the Universe.
This statement also includes the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.
The claim that the Bible can never be taken literally has two logical problems. First, the word literally must be defined. It leads to confusion when words are not defined. The reason this phase is a particular problem is that it has been used in an irrational way. The Bible does have sections that are poetic. Often, God speaks through the Bible in types and shadows. What God says through the Bible in these cases is literally true, but the text itself is not literal. Often, the word, literally, means that someone is using the corrupted human mind to evaluate the Bible. The Bible can only be understood to the extent that God reveals it. The Genesis account is plainly written in the historical narrative style of Hebrew writing, therefore, it is to be understood as history. At the same time, that history must be revealed by the Holy Spirit. The second problem with the claim that the Bible can never be taken literally is that this is a bald assertion with no premise to support it. It is simple stated in an almost bullying fashion. The way the entire statement reads, it is like a threat where the occult chemist is saying, “Unless you knuckle under, I will call you ignorant.”
Fuzzy language, but I think you are referring to creation, since that was your original line of thought. If you think that science has disproved creation, then you would be able to give me the steps to the scientific experiments that I could conduct for myself and prove that God actually didn’t create but that everything created itself from nothing. Please also explain how you get around the Laws of Science to make such a claim.
Why are you creationists so afraid that the real evolution of man will debunk the whole Bible?
Presupposing what you are trying to prove is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, that is, begging the question. What we are discussing is whether or not the story of evolution is real or fake. By calling it real, you are presupposing it to be real in order to prove it to be real. That is circular. The reference to fear is called the fallacy of the red herring. It is not relevant to the discussion. It also falsely presupposes that I have fear, which is the fallacy of presupposition.
Spirit is spirit; it is eternal. Flesh…it rots down to the seas!
It is quite fine to believe that there may be some pedagogical errors in the presentation of the Theory of Evolution to the layman. But, to the expert…go and bomb Harvard, incinerate Yale, assume control of the Lucasian chair of Physics and Mathematics at Oxford…or you may want to destroy the entire academic, scholastic, naturalistic school of science in toto.
Nonsense.
That is, indeed, nonsense. One wonders why you wrote it.
We have hard evidence of the Theory of Evolution. You Christians do not have any chance to produce hard evidence that man is only 6000 years old!
If you know of hard evidence that proves that particles-to-people evolution actually is how all the various kinds of living things got here, then you could produce that. In that case, it would not be the logical fallacy of bald assertion without presenting any evidence.
Do not be offended. I know the consequences of atheistic naturalism even if it holds well. The world’s youth would abhor the Bible more than it already does.
That would be an appeal to consequences. The consequences cannot have any impact on truth. But truth must be built on evidence. My evidence is that God revealed that this is what He did and nothing that can be observed using the tools of science in any way contradicts the Utterance of God. God speaks the same thing through His creation as He speaks through the Bible. There is no conflict. In fact, God says that those who fail to acknowledge Him as He reveals His mighty Power and Wisdom through His creation are without excuse. So, He turns them over to their own reprobate minds.
We are not Jews. We can’t believe that they are a “chosen race”. The European Aryan races are the proof of the existence of a creation other than the fable of Genesis.
God says that He chose the children of Abraham in the natural and that those of us who have received Christ and are in submission to Christ have been born into, grafted into, the spiritual Israel. However, we are only grafted in. They are the children of promise. This is based on revelation. What you have proposed seems to be a bare assertion without evidence. To use the word, fable, in regard to Genesis is  fallacy in this regard. It is circular reasoning since it is presupposing what you are trying to prove.
Regarding spirits of the dead: they are all around us in very close proximity though in a non-physical plane, just emotional.
Many who are involved in the occult are deceived to believe that they are dealing with spirits of the dead when, in fact, they are being deceived by evil spirits who mean to kill them. We don’t know all about the other side, but it seems that those saints who have gone on before us are not that far from us. God says that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses of those who died in faith. For those who died without the true faith of God, there is torment.
Occultism is much more serious than you think. You have never read a good history of science or of experimental magic. We, who are more sensitive than others perceive thousands of immaterial presences around us. You have never studied Theosophy, how can you know anything about occultism? Do you know Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, or the history of spiritualism?  You are not an expert in this particular subject; you can’t be afraid of what you do not know.
This is a good subject to be ignorant of. I wish I knew less about it. I will focus on that which leads to the genuine and absolute fullness of life of the coming Kingdom Age rather than focusing on that which leads to death.
Again, there are bigots in science who deny the existence of God…they are doomed to perdition;but so are the religious bigots who are ill-prepared to understand a complex theory that involves molecular cellular biochemistry, atomic isotopic radioactive decay dating methods, archaeological physical medical anthropology. You know nothing of this.
What I know or don’t know is not an issue, so this is the logical fallacy of irrelevance. What is at issue is whether you can actually produce real empirical evidence, without any stories, arbitrary assumptions, irrational statements, or outright lies that absolutely proves that God didn’t create everything just as He says that He did. The other thing that is at issue is whether or not God can be trusted. I know, by revelation, that He can be trusted. He is good and is the only source of goodness.
But, remember, this problem is only about the fear that Christians have that the whole Bible will be discredited.
Using the word, remember, constitutes a presupposition that what follows that word is true. But what follows that word has not been shown to be true. So it is presupposing what you are trying to claim. This is known as circular reasoning.
Whether or not some Christians have the fear of which you speak is a moot point and irrelevant to the entire discussion.The Bible will not be discredited. From the serpent in the garden, Satan has been trying to discredit God’s Utterance. God laughs at Him. In the time of the Ages of the Ages, God’s wisdom will be fully understood.
The Bible will not be discredited. From the serpent in the garden, Satan has been trying to discredit God’s Utterance. God laughs at Him. In the time of the Ages of the Ages, God’s wisdom will be fully understood.
How can anyone deny the New Testament? Impossible. The problem is that, ideologically, scientists mock creationists to the point that there has to be a reaction against this fanatical pantheism, which, unfortunately, happens to be logically true.
It’s difficult to understand what you are trying to state. Pantheism is the all-is-god story. You say it is fanatical and there is a reaction by someone against it. Who to you see as following pantheism? Who do you see as reacting against it? And what is the thing that you think is logically true?
The fact that Atheist-minded scientists mock anything just shows their bias and lack of objectivity.
If you think that no one can deny the New Testament, then you would be guilty of the logical fallacy of inconsistent thinking were you not to also say that no one can deny Genesis, since Jesus and the apostles plainly refer to the events of Genesis and the creation as real historical events.
Pardon my frank answers. I have tried to speak the truth in love and to be as respectful as possible. I hope that you can see that everything you have presented fails in the realm of reason. It also fails in the spiritual realm, since it is in direct conflict with what God is revealing.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Leave a Reply