A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

I think the same goes for disciplined researchers in other fields, too. A good Historian authoring a monograph will have a clearly formed thesis statement, followed by supporting evidence, followed by a conclusion.While this may be oversimplified for the sake of discussion, the nature of the body of a paper (the supporting evidence) is where one can really pick up on the quality of the research and how well supported the conclusion actually is. Bibliographies or works cited pages should go further than simply the author, work, page number, etc, but include a dissection of the source itself. One would not, for example, cite the Anglo Saxon Chronicles without addressing inherent problems with the Chronicles such as legendary/semi-legendary aspects, religious influences, etc. Boiling down the source (with all its flaws) while still showing the relevance can be tough with a lot of primary source documents.But a well formed thesis would not simply rely on documents. Archaeological evidence and available data from what I'll call "hard" science must come into play as well. If documentary evidence nests nicely with physical evidence, then you have something. This is where areas like attempting to find the historical "Exodus" from Egypt and the like start to collapse. The documentary evidence (i.e. the Pentateuch) may have some verifiable claims, but the entirety of the narrative may not be supported.This is where I find the biggest logical problems among many creationist (well, I'll limit that to Young Earth Creationist or Biblical Literalists) arguments. They simply form their thesis ("God made the universe, liberated the Hebrews from Egypt, Flooded the World" what have you) and then declare the documentary evidence -- really mythos -- is itself authority enough to validate the thesis statement. It's the ultimate argument from authority: God authored the Bible, the Bible says this happened, therefore it happened. The same is done with what they bizarrely perceive as supporting evidence: strange hypotheses (such as the vapor canopy) which they simply cannot defend scientifically or historically. They strangely regard the fact that they have been able to form a hypothesis as evidence in and of itself! They stop there, declare victory, and take their family to lunch and a tour of the Creation Museum.I've seen this same pattern repeated time and time again reading through these threads (particularly IamJoseph's posts) where there is no logical support for what is declared. Simply "X is true. Y says it is true. Therefore X is really super true."Hopefully this made at least a bit of sense. I'm enjoying a post Thanksgiving conversation with my old friend Johnny Walker. He's a helluva guy.

This is so. Many sites that discuss logical fallacies warn of identifying them and leaving it at that. The sort of 'this is false because it is logical fallacy x' reasoning. As One Good Move states:

quote:

---

The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite.

---

There are some debators that do like to use logical fallacies as rhetorical swords, thinking that they are very clever for having identified them. But it is true: it is not sufficient in the world of rhetoric.

Two closely related but technically distinct logical fallacies are circular reasoning and begging the question. Unfortunately, even sources sometimes confuse the two. According to Wikipedia, circular reasoning is a formal fallacy and begging the question is an informal fallacy. As far as I can tell, the technical differences between them are not great and the two can be treated here together.Begging the question is "A logical fallacy in which a premise of an argument contains a direct or indirect assumption that the conclusion is true; offering a circular argument; circular reasoning."begging the question - WiktionaryHere's an example from Message 1The author writes: The problem is the author has framed the argument in a way to philosophically exclude the possibility of something or someone existing outside of time and matter. Since the question arises from the discussion of the big bang and the fact it "smacks of divine intervention," the author is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.Said another way, the question is "Is a timeless and immaterial Creator God responsible for the big bang?" In this example, the author is attempting to argue that nothing can exist outside of time or have the quality of being immaterial. His argument is begging the question.

It is all to common for apologists to falsely claim that the arguments that they oppose contain fallacies. This is just another example.

quote:

---

The problem is the author has framed the argument in a way to philosophically exclude the possibility of something or someone existing outside of time and matter. Since the question arises from the discussion of the big bang and the fact it "smacks of divine intervention," the author is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

---

The problem with this is that it is simply untrue. The argument simply states that something that does not come into existence cannot require a cause to bring it into existence. Which should be perfectly obvious.

quote:

---

Said another way, the question is "Is a timeless and immaterial Creator God responsible for the big bang?" In this example, the author is attempting to argue that nothing can exist outside of time or have the quality of being immaterial. His argument is begging the question.

---

This is simply silly. The argument in fact attempts to answer the question of why there is a relationship between "beginning to exist" and "having a cause" and finds that the reason does not apply to things that exist at the first moment of time (if there is one - and assuming that there are no other time dimensions where there are earlier moments).
It does not argue that such entities cannot have a cause (only that any such cause cannot bring the entity into existence), let alone argue against beings "outside of time" or lacking material substance. All that is designtheorist's invention.

Designtheorist, how about a response to message 301?

I love the way that the "smacks of..." quote has gone from Hawking describing someone else's opinion, to Hawking's own opinion and now it has actually become a fact!Is there a Latin name for that DT? Would you prefer that he employed an argument from ignorance, as you do in the same circumstances? Or do you only disapprove of logical fallacies when other people commit them?Mutate and Survive

I think "error of omission" is a factual error rather than a logical fallacy.--Percy

It is circular reasoning based on an unexamined and false premise. The unexamined premise is "Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time." The problem with this premise is that if a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, then he or she exists outside of space and time. The entire argument is built around this false premise that nothing exists outside of space and time, but that is the very question at hand. This is circular reasoning.The OP says: If a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, he or she did not begin to exist so there is no need for a cause. If the universe began to exist at the big bang, then it needs a cause. The only cause available is something which exists outside of space and time - a Universe Designer or Creator God.

This is very muddled, but there's definitely Affirming The Consequent there ... curiously enough, Just Making Shit Up is not considered a logical fallacy.

At least you are trying to provide some evidence for your claim that I am quote mining (quoting out of context), but I remain unconvinced. There are different levels of linguistic context and historical context. While the narrow linguistic context seems to support your view, the larger linguistic and historical context supports mine.The quote I cited appeared on page 46 of A Brief History of Time. Hawking writes:"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang."If someone looks at that passage alone, Hawking is clearly speaking of other people. However, in the larger context it is clear Hawking does not disagree with this assessment. Hawking never argues that this opinion is in error. In fact, by 1988 Hawking had "changed his mind" about the big bang and the beginning of time so he could avoid the appearance of divine intervention."So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then for a creator? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 140-141.When you look at the larger historical context, Hawking clearly agrees with those who think the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." If Hawking did not agree with the assessment, he would not have changed his opinion about the big bang and introduced his view of the "no boundary universe" or his other views on cosmology.In Hawking's early work, he did not seem to contemplate the theological implications of his work. However, the theological implications dominated his thinking later in his career.In order for you to convince me I am using the quotes (please do not select one quote in isolation) out of context, you will have to show me where Hawking disagrees with the view the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." I have looked for such a passage and cannot find one. All I have found is evidence that Hawking can see how the big bang is supportive of sudden creation from nothing just as the Bible (and I think the Koran) teaches.When you see me use "smacks of divine intervention" think of it as me quoting Hawking quoting other people about a point Hawking agrees with.

My argument has nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent. I was merely providing definitions. There are some people who do not understand the definition of a being powerful enough to be the First Cause, the Universe Designer or Creator God. By definition this being would exist outside of space and time.

quote:

---

It is circular reasoning based on an unexamined and false premise. The unexamined premise is "Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time."

---

Strictly speaking, circular reasoning requires the conclusion to be used as a premise. A statement that does not appear in the argument at all - neither as conclusion nor premise - cannot be used as the basis of a claim of circular reasoning. Thus your assertion is clearly false.

designtheorist writes:

quote:

---

There are some people who do not understand the definition of a being powerful enough to be the First Cause, the Universe Designer or Creator God. By definition this being would exist outside of space and time.

---

Why? A being that exists outside of space and time cannot affect space and time for to do so would require being part of space and time.Why would such a being have to exist outside of space and time?

quote:

---

When you look at the larger historical context, Hawking clearly agrees with those who think the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." If Hawking did not agree with the assessment, he would not have changed his opinion about the big bang and introduced his view of the "no boundary universe" or his other views on cosmology.

---

As has been shown in earlier posts, Hawking has only rejected the idea of an initial singularity, and apparently even accepts that there is the appearance of an initial singularity in our "real" time as opposed to the "imaginary" time, which gives a more accurate view of the universe.Hawking was lead to this view by a desire to integrate Quantum Mechanics into the theory of gravity (which is necessary for cosmology) and by a desire to make the theory as complete as possible (i.e. unexplained "boundary conditions" are undesirable from a scientific view, and a theory which removes them is - all else being equal - preferable to one that does not). Hawking also argues that it seems perplexing, given theism, why a God would require inexplicable boundary conditions, while leaving the rest of the universe open to our investigation (without considering the merits of Hawking's argument there is no sign of any aversion to the idea of a Divine Creator at all). (see Message 223)Further quotes from Chapter 8 of A Brief History of Timep133 Hawking then goes on to explain that time must be described using imaginary numbers to deal with Quantum Mechanics' "sum over histories", while classical theory uses only real numbers. These terms are mathematical convention only , and when Hawking refers to "real" space-time or "real" time he means "real" precisely in this sense.p135 p136 Hawking is quite clear. Specifying the initial conditions of the universe is a problem. The no-boundary universe solves that problem. This is his stated motivation. Speculations that he had some other motive cannot be considered as evidence.

No you weren't.