Make up Chart on Flip Chart

Flip Chart - Foundations

Bible Believer• Morality – moral code• Logic / Reasoning• Uniformity in Nature • (laws of nature)• -----------------------------------

• God• Foundation

Atheist• Morality - moral code• Logic / Reasoning• Uniformity in Nature • (laws of nature)• ------------------------------

• ???• Foundation

Thinking Outside the Box. . .

. . .

. . .

Connect the dots above with only 4 straight lines… do not lift your pen from the paper until you are finished

I I I I I I There are 6 lines above… add

another 7 lines to equal 9

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Concerning them that have died in Christ “fallen asleep”

•13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.•14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.•15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.•16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:•17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.•18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

START

•Class 1

•Hand Out Questions

2 Cor 10:3-5

• For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

• We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

Atheist Vs. Bible Believer Debate about “The Existence of God”

Rules for the Debate..

• What are the written or unwritten rules for a debate?

• What is Presupposed at the beginning of the debate, by the two opponents???

“The Rules”• Argue for the Truth of the matter• Don’t Lie / Be Honest• Don’t Contradict yourself…• Be Rational – use good Reasoning – (Sound Logic)• Be Polite• Demonstrate how your opponent is Wrong and you

are Right

• Who’s world view can rationally account for these concepts?

• I would submit to you (and smarter people than myself have already figured this out) that the Bible Believer has already won the debate before a very word is spoken, because of the very existence of these concepts.

• Even if the Bible Believer “loses the debate” by bad use of his own intellect, he has really won the debate because these concepts make perfect sense under his world view and these concepts have no foundation whatsoever in the Atheist's worldview.

Isaiah 1:18

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…”

Reasoning in the Bible? Acts 17• 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,

they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

• 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

• 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

• 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and many of the leading women.

• Paul argues w/ his fellow Jews that Jesus is the Messiah

2 Cor 10:3-5 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh.

•4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

•5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive, to obey Christ ESV

“Strongholds” – Strong's Concordance # 794

• 1) a castle, stronghold, fortress

• 2) anything on which one relies

• a) of the arguments and reasonings by which a person endeavors to fortify his opinion and defend it against his opponent

Titus 1:9

• 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Acts 26:24-26 (New International Version)• 24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense.

“You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

• 25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable.

• • 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can

speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.

• What was not done in a corner?

Why do this Study?

Why do this study? This study will sharpen our Scriptural “Argumentation” We will be better able to refute those that contradict the word of God (with the intention of leading them to Christ)

•The study of logical fallacies is especially useful when dealing with those that hold to the theory of Evolution, you will be better able to see not just what the Atheists are saying, but how they are saying it, and examine their statements / arguments to see if they make sense or have logical fallacies in them. You will then be able to point out their errors.

•We will demonstrate how the Atheist's Worldview cannot rationally account for concepts such as: Absolute Morality, Laws of Logic, and the Uniformity of Nature and how the Christian Worldview does!

Colossians 4:5-6.

• Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Eph 4:14

• That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Logic / Reasoning• Logic is the Study of The Principles

of Correct Reasoning (and also incorrect reasoning)

• Have your ever asked yourself why a “Standard of Reasoning” would even exist in a Chance Universe?

• (in the Atheist's Worldview?)

What Logic is…• Logic It is about the chain of reasoning rather than the specific hard

evidences used within the argument.

• What conclusions can be reasonably inferred or deduced from accepted facts in an argument.

• Example…Someone tells you they found a fossil of a dinosaur, and inside that fossil there was a fossil of a man…

• You could conclude: Therefore I believe the Dinosaur ate the man…

• Would that be a reasonable conclusion from that data?

• Logic would be about examining the actual statements themselves to see if they make sense or not, not the actual evidence (fossils.) That’s how Logic Works…

Keywords:

• Proposition• Argument• Premise (s)• Conclusion• Valid• Sound• Logical Fallacies

Proposition• A Proposition is a group of statements that affirms or denies

something and it is either true or false…

• The proposition is the meaning of the sentence, not so much how the sentence is stated or written.

• Example of Propositions:• The sky is overcast today

• All horses are brown

• The amount of stars in the universe is an even number

Argument• An Argument is a group of Propositions where

the truth of one is claimed to follow from the others.

• The word “Argument” is not to be confused with a heated shouting match or fight, Not “Argumentative” –

Not this…

Arguing for the Truth

Example of a Simple Argument• All Mammals have Kidneys <---- Premise #1

• All Dogs are Mammals <---- Premise #2

• Therefore, all Dogs have Kidneys Conclusion

Example of an Error in an Argument

• Some Mammals are Cats <---- Premise #1 T

• All Dogs are Mammals <---- Premise #2 T

• Therefore, some Dogs are Cats Conclusion F

• Easy example of an error in the “chain of reasoning” – This is not a flowing argument because the conclusion is not sound.

Valid / Validity

• An argument is Valid if the Conclusion does follow from the Premise(s)

• An argument is Invalid if the Conclusion does not follow from the Premise(s)

Example of “Valid”• All Mammals are Reptiles < ---- Premise #1 F

• All Dogs are Mammals < ---- Premise #2 T

• Therefore, all dogs are Reptiles < ---Conclusion

• This argument is Valid because it does follow from the Premises

• However…

• the Conclusion is false & therefore unreliable.The 1st premise is also false

Valid Vs. Sound

• Do not Equate “Valid” Arguments with “Sound” Arguments… they are very very different!

Sound or Soundness

• An argument is “Sound” if all the premises are true and the conclusion is true and the conclusion flows from the premises.

• If the argument is Unsound, than the conclusion is unreliable!

Test Time…

Is this Argument Valid – Is this Argument Sound?

• All Mammals are Reptiles

• All Dogs are Mammals

• Therefore, all dogs are Reptiles

• Valid? Y Sound? N

• Remember Valid is not the same as Sound

Is this Argument Valid – Is this Argument Sound?• All dogs are Cats Premise 1 f

Some Cats are Chickens Premise 2 f

Therefore, the sky is blue – Conclusion t

• Valid? N Sound? N

• BUT:• The Conclusion by its self is True –

• Be careful, even an invalid argument can have a true conclusion. Still the argument as a whole is incorrect.

Is this Argument Valid – Is this Argument Sound?

• All dogs are Mammals T

• All Cats have Kidneys T

• Therefore, the Sky is Blue T

• Valid? N … why… bad chain of reasoning… • Sound N

• But the all the propositions here are True

Lets look at the Serpent’s Argument towards Eve

NIV Version Gen 3• 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild

animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

• 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

• 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

• 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

• 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

• 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

• 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

• Serpents Question: Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

• Eve’s Answer: 2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

• 3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

• Serpent makes an argument:• Ye shall not surely die < ---- Conclusion came 1st in his argument

• For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then shall your eyes be opened < ---- “Premise“Premise” #1

• And ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil < --- Premise #2 (not real premises by the way)…

• For God knows when you eat of it…

• Your eyes will be open - Premise 1• You will be like God - Premise 2 You will know the difference between Good & Evil

- -Premise 3

• Therefore You will not Die - Conclusion

• In other words what the Serpent was Arguing to Eve was this… Look Eve, How can you die, if when you eat that fruit, your eyes are open, you become like God – knowing Good from Evil?... You would have to be alive to experience all those things!!! Right?....

Your eyes will be open - Premise 1•You will be like God - Premise 2 You will know the difference between Good & Evil - Premise 3•You will not Die - Conclusion

•Make believe you are Eve… from her viewpoint:•Were the premises true or false (how could she know, unless she “experimented”)•Was the Serpents Conclusion Valid / Sound? V•Was the Serpents Argument Subtle?•Where is the error in the chain of reasoning?

Eve Bought the Serpent’s Argument and then formed another argument in her mind…!

• Saw that the tree was good for food T or F• Was pleasant to the eyes T or F• Tree to be desired to make one wise T or F

• She ignored what God had said and decided to go with what the Serpent said and what her own senses were telling her…

Suppose that Eve took a step back from the scenario she was in… and thought from a rational / logical position…

• God Said:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Eve restates it:3But of the fruit of the tree which is in

the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die• (dying thou shalt die)

Will Die

• Serpent Said:

• “You will not certainly die”

Won’t Die

What do we have here?

• What is the Logical Term?

“Contradiction”• A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a

situation that are directly opposed to one another.

• In this case:

• God says you will die if you eat the fruit…

• Serpent says you won’t die if you eat the fruit…

• Definition of Die: “Dying thou shalt die”

“Contradiction”• If Eve acted rational at this point she would of came

to the correct conclusion…

• The serpent is directly Contradicting what God said.

• Hummmm……. Lets see…God is God and Will not Lie.. I should listen to him & obey his law, instead of listening to the Serpent (who has no credentials)

• God doesn’t have Opinions on matters does he? • He can only speak Truth.

Lies mixed w/ Truth…

Was there any truth in the Serpents “Argument”?

Your eyes will be open - Premise 1

•You will be like God - Premise 2

You will know the difference between Good & Evil - Premise 3

•You will not Die - Conclusion

Lies mixed w/ Truth

• What is really dangerous is when an argument has a little bit of lies mixed in with truth.

• These types of bad arguments are a little harder to figure than a flat out lie – they are Subtle!

• The little bit of truth in the argument “sugar coats” the lies – making the argument easier to swallow.

Class 2

•Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies• A deceptive, misleading, or false notion / belief

• A misleading or unsound argument

• Any various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound

• Common errors in the “chain of reasoning”…..

• There are Many different kinds of Fallacys – some are easy to spot – some are hard to spot

Logical Fallacies… “Weak Links” in an argument

Some Logical Fallacies can be Persuasive…

• People tend to think, “Yeah that argument makes sense”

• …. When in fact upon closer examination the argument makes no sense at all!

Logical Fallacies• False Dilemma• Equivocation• Poisoning the Well• Cause & Effect• Ad Hominem• Appeal to Force• Begging the Question -

Circular Reasoning

• Red Herring• Straw man Argument• Failure to State• Appeal to the Popular• Moving The Goalposts

• Appeal to tradition• Genetic fallacy• Guilt by Association• Argument Ad Nauseam• Argument By Uninformed

Opinion• Appeal to Pity• Appeal to the Popular• Special Pleading• Reification• Bad Analogy• Slippery Slope Fallacy• Lies

• Using one of these Fallacies in your argument can render the argument:

• un-sound

7 Common Logical / Reasoning Fallacies:

•Reification•Equivocation•Bifurcation (False Dilemma)•Irrelevant Thesis•Circumstantial Ad Hominem•Ad Hominem•Begging the Question – Circular Reasoning

Examples:• “The evidence speaks for itself”• “Science say Evolution is True”• “Evolution found away around these problems”• “Its not nice to fool mother nature”• “Life will find away”• “Natural Selection guided the development…”• “Creationists say this… but Science says that”

Reification

• This is when some one is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract in an Argument.

Reification:•Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” This is an example of reification because “nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name we give to the chain of events in the universe. Nature is not a person and cannot literally be fooled, since nature does not have a mind. So, this expression would not make sense if taken literally. •Of course, not all language should be taken literally. There is nothing wrong with reification as a figure of speech. It is perfectly acceptable in poetry. Even the Bible uses reification at times in its poetic sections. For example, Proverbs 8 personifies the concept of wisdom. This is a perfectly acceptable (and poetically beautiful) use of reification.

• However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy. The reason for this is that it is often ambiguous and can obscure important points in a debate. It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy. …

• Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolutionary worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. God can design creatures because God is a being. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything. Gen Chapters 1 - 2

• “Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. In doing so, he or she overlooks the important fact that the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusions—not “science.” Science is a conceptual tool that can be used properly or improperly. It says nothing. It does not take a position on issues. So, this common example of reification is logically fallacious.

• “Evolution figured out a way around these problems.” I have a heard a number of evolutionists say something along these lines when attempting to explain some intricately designed living system. But, of course, evolution is a concept. It has no mind and cannot figure out anything. So, this example again obscures the difficulty in accounting for design in the universe without appealing to a mind. It is a fallacious use of reification.

• Even the phrase natural selection is an example of reification and could be considered a fallacy if used in an argument. Nature cannot literally select. We do believe in the concept called “natural selection.” Yes, organisms that are well-suited to an environment are more likely to survive than those that are not well-suited.

• But, suppose we asked, “Why is it that animals are well-suited to their environment?” If an evolutionist answered “natural selection,” this would be the fallacy of reification. It obscures the true reason that animals are designed to survive—God.

Reification (double)

Equivocation• This is a also known as the Bait-and-Switch fallacy. This fallacy is

committed when the meaning of a word is shifted in the course of an argument. This is one of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists when the world “evolution” is used.

• Evolution simply means “change” in a general sense, or it can refer to the idea that life is descended from a common ancestor. Either meaning is legitimate, but the two should not be mixed within an argument.

• Example 1: “Creationists do not believe in evolution. But evolution happens everyday, things change. So it is absurd for creationists to deny evolution”.

• The 2nd time the word Evolution is used its for the “small changes” definition, whilst the 3rd time its used, it is referring to the “common descent” definition This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation.

• Example 2: “Evolution is a fact, we see evolution in animals as they adapt to their environment !”.

• The first part of this statement is referring to the idea where animals change from one kind to another (common descent) whilst the 2nd part is referring to the observable small variation within the kind. (different kinds of dogs, cats etc)

• This is also known as the bait-and-switch fallacy. Evolutionists use a known scientific observation and then later switch to another meaning to promote common descent.

• Example 3: “Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; it has allowed us to develop technology, and even to put men on the moon. So why would people deny the science of evolution?”.

• The argument equivocates on the word “science” which can either mean operational science or origins science.

• Operation science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for technology.

• Origins science is an attempt to understand past events in light of present evidence; it’s much more easily tainted by historical bias than operation science and is not directly testable or repeatable.

• These two types of the word science should not be mixed within an argument. If they are it’s the fallacy of equivocation.

Equivocation illustrated in a Photo

Bifurcation• A person commits the fallacy of bifurcation

when he or she claims that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities—when, in fact, there is a third option.

• For this reason the fallacy is also known as the either-or fallacy and the false dilemma.

• Not to be confused with a regular Dilemma

• “Either the traffic light is red, or it is green.” This is obviously fallacious, since the light could be yellow.

“Either you have faith or you are rational.” This commits the fallacy of bifurcation, since there is a third possibility: we can have faith and be rational. In fact, we would argue faith is essential in order to be rational.

• “Either the universe operates in a law-like fashion, or God is constantly performing miracles.” This is also fallacious because a third possibility exists: the universe operates in a law-like fashion most of the time, and God occasionally performs a miracle.

• Sometimes the origins debate is framed as “faith vs. reason,” “science or religion,” or the “Bible vs. science.” These are all false dilemmas. Faith and reason are not contrary. They go well together.

• The fallacy of bifurcation may be more difficult to spot when the person merely implies that only two options exist, rather than explicitly stating this.

• “I could never live by faith because I am a rational person.” This sentence presents us with only two options: either faith, or rationality. But, these are not exclusive. A rational person must have some degree of faith. So, the true Christian takes the third, unmentioned option: faith and rationality.

• “The Bible teaches that ‘in Christ all things hold together.’ But we now know that the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are what hold the universe together.”

• This is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation because the critic has implicitly assumed that either (1) God holds the universe together, or (2) gravity and electromagnetism do. However, these are not exclusive. “Gravity” and “Electromagnetism” are simply the names we give to the way in which God holds the universe together. Laws of nature are not a replacement for God’s power. Rather, they are an example of God’s power.

• “You must not really believe that God is going to answer your request for healing; otherwise you would not have gone to the doctor.”

• The false dilemma here is that either the doctor will help the person or God will. But why can’t it be both? God can use human actions as part of the means by which He accomplishes His will.

• On the other hand, in some situations there really are only two options; and it is not fallacious to say so. “Either my car is in the garage, or it is not in the garage” commits no fallacy.

• The key to spotting fallacies of bifurcation is to watch for cases when only two options are presented (either explicitly or implicitly) and to consider carefully whether or not there is a third possibility.

John 9 –– False Dilemma posed…• Disciples presupposed something concerning the blind man…

they presumed his blindness was because either he sinned or his parents sinned…

• The “Either Or” argument – one or the other. Also called the False Dilemma –it was not posed as an argument it was just a presumption they carried – and so did the Pharisees!

• What was the 3rd option?• 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his

parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (3rd option)

Don’t confuse False Dilemma w/ Real Dilemma!

• After the events of September 11th 2001 President George Bush said:

• You are either with us or you're with the terrorists.

Analysis: The 3rd choice is neutrality.

Irrelevant Thesis Fallacy. This is when someone attempts to prove a conclusion that is not at issue.

•For example the you might question an evolutionist with:

•“Why is the universe ideally suited for life? •They might answer: “Because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it”.

•It is true that if the universe were not suited for life we wouldn’t be here to observe it but this does not actually

answer the question WHY the universe is suited for life!

Imagine Murray is the sole survivor of a plane crash…

Example

•When a reporter asks Murray how it was that he was the only passenger that was able to survive, it would be fallacious for him to reply,

•“Because if I hadn’t survived, I would not be here to answer your question.”

•Although it is true that Murray would not be around to answer the question if he died, this doesn’t answer the question itself-why he was able to survive.

•All fallacies of irrelevant thesis can be rebutted with this simple phrase: “True perhaps, but irrelevant.”

Circumstantial Ad Hominem• A Circumstantial ad Hominem… • is when someone claims that an argument is

Only due to a persons Circumstances.

• In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion)

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

• “You are just a Christadelphian because you were taught that stuff from your parents.”

• ETC…

• This would be like saying…

• You just believe in the multiplication tables because you were taught them in school…..

Begging the Question

• This is where the conclusion of an argument is incorporated into the premises.

• Or when the Premise and the Conclusion are both saying the same thing.

Begging the Question – Circular Question

• “We know evolution is true, because it is a scientific fact.”

• The premise is just a restatement of the conclusion.

• It should be noted that circular reasoning is Valid (by definition) but Not Sound (normally)

So what do we do with this Verse?

• Hebrews 6:13• 13 For when God made a promise to Abraham,

since he had no one greater by whom to swear by, he swore by himself,…

• Is this circular?• Is this valid?• Is it sound?

2nd look at circular reasoning…

• “The Exception to the Rule”…GOD

Exception to the Rule… GOD• God is the only Being that can Use Circular Reasoning and the

argument will be valid and sound… think about these sets of verses…

• 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

• 6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

• Heb 6:13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself,

Circular Reasoning – also known as “begging the question”

• Some degree of “Circular Reasoning” is unavoidable when dealing with your ULTIMATE STANDARD

• -Everyone (Believers & Athiest’s alike) must reason in a somewhat circular fashion when they are defending their ultimate standard… and in our case… God

Everyone has to use circular reasoning when defending their Ultimate Standard

• Naturalism to defend / prove Naturalism• Empiricism to defend / prove Empiricism• Science to defend / prove Science• Logic to defend / prove Logic• The Koran to defend / prove Allah• The Bible to defend / prove God

• ETC….

• Just because everyone has to use circular reasoning to defend their ultimate standard doesn’t make it ok…

• The question is not which worldview uses circular reasoning to defend their ultimate standard… (because they all do) the question is which world view can use it successfully.

Example: • Lets say you have a belief:

• Belief: That Mars has two Moons… T / F T• “Well how do you know Mars has two moons?”• “Well I heard from Michael that is does” – that’s how I know

that• How do you know Michael is telling you the truth?• Well I verified it in a text book• How do you know the text book is correct?• Well this text book agrees with all the other text books…• Well how do you that all they are correct?

• All beliefs go back to something, if they are pushed far enough they will eventually end somewhere… that “somewhere” or “end point” is Your Ultimate Standard

• A B C D E F G <– Ultimate Standard

Each letter represents a belief that in built on the next corresponding letter (belief)

all the way back to its origin - GOD

A B C D E F G – ultimate standard

•How do you know that your ultimate standard “G” is true?

•You can’s say because it follows from the next letter (belief) out “F” because then I can ask you how you know F is true.. All the way back to A…

Options:• “G” must be Self Attesting – Our Ultimate

Standard must attest to Itself

• Yes this involves a degree of “Circular Reasoning” – BUT What is the Alternative.. Nothing – its not a viscious circle.

• God can’t point to a higher being than himself - Because he himself is the Highest Power!

• Isaiah 44:8• Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told

thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Ad Hominem• - Attacking the individual instead of the

argument.

– Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.

– Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

• Probably the most Common

Start Here

•Class 3

“Thinking Outside the Box”

. . .

. . .

. . .Rules:Connect all the dots above with only 4 straight lines. Do not lift your pen from the paper once you start drawing.

There are 6 lines below, add 7 more to equal 9

I I I I I I

To see if an argument has a flaw in it…. • 1 Arbitrary – Meer Opinion given as proof

• 2 Inconsistencies – Contains Contradictory ideas

• 3 Logical Fallacies - Errors in the chain of reasoning

• 4 Does it have Scriptural Basis???

• “Prove all things hold fast to that which is true”

Good uses of Arguments in the Bible

• “Argument for the Stronger”

• “Reduced to Absurdity”

• Psalms 26: 3-5 (Shows us how to answer a fool)

“ARGUMENT FOR THE STRONGER”• Jesus was fond of what are called an argument from the

stronger reason. We use them often in everyday arguments. These arguments have the following form:

• 1. The truth of idea A is accepted and true

• 2. Support for the truth of idea B (which is relevantly similar to idea A) is even stronger than that of idea A.

• 3. Therefore, if the truth of idea A is accepted, then so must the truth of idea B be accepted.

Jonah Chapter 4 • 1But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry. 2

• He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.

• 3"Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life."

• 4The LORD said, "Do you have good reason to be angry?" • 5Then Jonah went out from the city and sat east of it. There he made a

shelter for himself and sat under it in the shade until he could see what would happen in the city.

• 6So the LORD God appointed a plant and it grew up over Jonah to be a shade over his head to deliver him from his discomfort. And Jonah was extremely happy about the plant.

• 7But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

• 8When the sun came up God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on Jonah's head so that he became faint and begged with all his soul to die, saying, "(Death is better to me than life."

• 9Then God said to Jonah, "Do you have good reason to be angry about the plant?" And he said, "I have good reason to be angry, even to death."

• 10Then the LORD said, "You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight.

• 11"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?"

What was Jonah's Problem?• Jonah was being Inconsistent

• What was Gods Argument here? • “Argument for the Stronger” / “Reduced to Absurdity”

• 10Then the LORD said, "You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight.

• 11"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?"

God uses what we call an “Argument for the Stronger” to illustrate to Jonah that his position is incorrect.

If you (Jonah) had compassion on a plant why can’t I (God) have compassion on Nineveh… These are People? Plants vs People!

Plants / People? Which one is more important?

Another erroneous idea Paul had to Combat was in…1 Cor 15:12 - end

• Claim: “there is no resurrection of the dead”

• 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

• This was a belief that was gaining traction in the Ecclesia in Corinth!

Original Teaching Paul preached that “Jesus Rose from the dead“ New Claim: “there is no resurrection of the dead”

If we believe this error, here is what happens to our faith / set of doctrines• But, if there be no resurrection of the dead, then: •1 Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then: and by extension: •2 our preaching is in vain, and and by extension: •3 your faith is also vain and by extension: •4 we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ•5 whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not•6 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised And if Christ be not raised, And by extension: 7 your faith is vain•8 ye are yet in your sins and by extension: •9 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. and by extension: •10 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. Conclusion – this is where this wrong thinking will bring you•Reductio Ad Absurdum: Paul showing that these people proposition / argument leads to an absurd conclusion. Reduced to Absurdity These were people in the ecclesia

If we believe this error, here is what happens to our faith / set of doctrines:

• But, if there be no resurrection of the dead, then: •1 Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then: and by extension: •2 our preaching is in vain, and and by extension: •3 your faith is also vain and by extension: •4 we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ•5 whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not

• 6 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised And if Christ be not raised, And by extension:

7 your faith is vain• 8 ye are yet in your sins and by extension: • 9 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are

perished. and by extension: • 10 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men

most miserable.

• Conclusion – this is where this wrong idea will bring you or I.

• It should be noted that Paul was writing to “Believers” in Corinth… they already had the basics… that he could work and reason with. This argument will not necessarly work with athiest because they don’t have the basics beliefs yet.

Reduced to Absurdity:

• Paul is demonstrating how this error is lead to an absurd conclusion.

• Reduced to Absurdity

• These were people in the Ecclesia!

Luke 11 … “Argument for the Stronger”• 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,

will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

• 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

• 13 If ye then, (ye being evil), know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

• We can take comfort that God knows what's best for us

“Argument for the Stronger”

• 23The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

• 24Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

Luke 13 – Jesus Argues w/ Synagogues leaders • 10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a

woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. 14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

• 15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

• 17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

Jesus’ argument looks like this:• 1. The Jews lawfully release animals from their confinement

on the Sabbath out of concern for the animals’ well-being.• 2. A woman’s well-being (deliverance from a chronic,

debilitating illness) is far more important than watering an animal.

• 3. Therefore, if watering an animal on the Sabbath is not a Sabbath violation, then Jesus’ healing of the woman on the Sabbath is not a violation of the Sabbath. (Argument for the Stronger)

• Luke recorded that when Jesus “said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing” (Luke 13:17, 13:10–17).

John 7:21–24• Consider Jesus’ argument against the Pharisees

concerning the rightness of His performing a healing miracle on the Sabbath:

• “I did one miracle on the Sabbath, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision, you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.

• Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath?

• Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.

Leviticus 12:2-4• 2Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a

woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

• 3And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

• 8 days after the birth… Sometimes this 8th day of the childs life would land on the Sabbath day… it happened all the time!

Genesis 17:13-15• 13He that is born in thy house, and he that is

bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

• 14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Pharisees had a big misconception of the Sabbath

• In the other example Jesus used, he reminded the Pharisees that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple “profane” the sabbath, which is to say that they do the temple work that was commanded of them.

• Again, what the priests did was work, it was work that was commanded by God himself, and therefore did not break the sabbath day commandment. Jesus continually reminded the Pharisees that he and his disciples kept the law, and not the vain traditions of men.

• The command to cease from your labor on the Sabbath day is not separated from the reality of the human condition.

• There are necessary functions that must be performed in order for people to live, even on the sabbath.

• As our Messiah said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.”

Acts 5:33 -39 Example of a Good Argument• 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider

carefully what you intend to do to these men. • 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be

somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. Premise & Conclusion

• 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Premise & Conclusion

• 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. Premise & Conclusion

• 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Conclusion

Gamaliel’s 1st Argument concerning what to do with Peter and other Apostles

• Some time ago Theudas appeared, • claiming to be somebody Premise 1 T or F

• and about four hundred men rallied to him Premise 2 T or F

• He was killed, all his followers were dispersed Premise 3 T or F

• , and it all came to nothing. Conclusion T or F

Gamaliel’s 2nd Argument concerning what to do with Peter and other Apostles

• After him, • Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census Premise 1 T or F

• and led a band of people in revolt. Premise 2 T or F

• He too was killed, Premise 3 T or F

• and all his followers were scattered. Premise 4 T or F

• and it all came to nothing. Conclusion T or F

Two Conclusions in Agreement• 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you:

Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. Conclusion

• 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” Conclusion

Answering a Fool

Proverbs 26:4-5

4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

• 5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Answering a Fool• We are not to embrace the “fools’ standard or his

presuppositions.. Otherwise we would be like him…

• However we are to answer him according to his folly in the sense of showing him where his presuppositions would go if Hypothetically they were true.

• We want to Reflect back to him, his Own idea so he can see how absurd it is, and therefore he cannot be wise in his own eyes.

Psalms 26: 3-5 Vs. 1 Peter 3:15• 4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like

unto him. 5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

• A fool questions you, attempting to trap you• – not genuinely asked

Difference between these verses

• 1 Peter 3:15• 15But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready

always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

• (someone genuinely asks you about your hope)

CEV

• 4Don't make a fool of yourself by answering a fool.

• 5But if you answer any fools, show how foolish their questions are, so they won't feel smart.

GNT

• 4 If you answer a silly question, you are just as silly as the person who asked it.

• 5 Give a silly answer to a silly question, and the one who asked it will realize that he's not as smart as he thinks.

Jesus Answers the Fool…Psalms 26: 3-5 (How to answer a fool)

• 22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

• 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

• 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

• 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

• 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

• 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

• 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

• 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

• 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

• 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Loaded Questions• A loaded question is a question which

contains an assumption such as a presumption of guilt.

Example:

• Have you stopped beating your wife?

• Yes or No?

Problem with answering this question:

• If you answer Yes: You admit that you did beat your wife.

• If you answer NO: You are admitting that you still are beating her.

• Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to have beaten her at some time in the past or still present.

• Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment is created, because it attempts to narrow the respondent to a single answer. Yes or No

• So if the question is to be asked it should be in the broken down manner, non-assuming manner, such as:

• Have you ever beaten your wife?...

• And if so, are you still?

• (no assumption in these questions… its not “loaded”)

Vs. “Have you stopped beating your wife? (The assumption is built in) It’s a Complex Question

United States Secretary of State 1993 – 2000

Real Life Example• Madeleine Albright claims to have answered (when she

should have challenged) a loaded question on the TV Show “60 Minutes” on May 1996.

• Mr. Stahl asked, regarding the effects of UN sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children that died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

• Madeleine Albright reply's: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

• Continued…

She later wrote of this response:

• “I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it…

• As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean.

• That is no one’s fault but my own.”

•Class 4•Silly Questions:

Can God Make a Rock So Big That He Can't Move It?

• The argument goes like this:

• Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?

• If he can't lift it, then he's not all powerful.

• But if he can't make such a rock, then he's also not all powerful.

• Therefore, an all powerful God can't exist.

• That silly question is similar to this next question...

•What happens when an Unstoppable Force meets an Unmovable Object?

•What is wrong with that question?

What's the answer?• The answer to both questions is: The question itself is in error, so

no answer is needed or even possible. Contradictory questions are meaningless.

• Look at the question again:

• When we say there is an “unstoppable force", we mean that we have a universe which contains a force, and no objects in that universe can stop it. Then we also say we have an "immovable object", we mean we have a universe which contains an object which can resist all forces in the same universe at the same time.

• Obviously, the two ideas are mutually contradictory.

• It is not sensible to define a universe which contains an object which stops all forces, and at the same time a force which moves all objects.