Now Narsil is famous

[darkumbra]

Narsil? "God is the best thing... because he is" ???
Great quote. Sorry I can't get behind it. It's statements like this which come across to me as the purest form of static. Semantically, there's no information here.

(and yeah, I'm back. Much needed time away and then a 3 week trip to Ireland.)

[NH Baritone]

Narsil? "God is the best thing... because he is" ???
Great quote. Sorry I can't get behind it. It's statements like this which come across to me as the purest form of static. Semantically, there's no information here.

This circular reasoning was truly difficult to listen to. I found it surprising that someone as intelligent as Narsil appears to be would so easily justify his leap from reasonableness. I've posted the following question on Yahoo! Answers (where I spend too much time hanging out and where there are a few more believers & atheists to respond):

Would Believers consider it sinful to justify your faith by knowingly using logical fallacies (false witness)?

You can see the responses as they appear here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvhOPO4m9hoQBhYSCjQ.Ag7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080207080522AARBCeT

[Rian]

I'm assuming you mean justify to others. If so, then yes, I think intentional deception is wrong, except in very, very rare cases (probably no one here would ever have to do it) where it conflicts with the second of the top two laws, loving your neighbor as yourself (IOW, I'd probably lie about it if I had been hiding a Jewish family in Nazi Germany).

I see a lot of talk from atheists about the logical fallacies that Christians commit (and I have no doubt that some Christians, as well as some atheists, use them), but I've never seen an example of ones that Christians on this forum like Wonders, Narsil, Scott and myself have actually used in the context of a proof (I've seen some statements that we've made that were changed and then rightly said to be logical fallacies). Do you have any examples?

[spongebob]

I'm assuming you mean justify to others. If so, then yes, I think intentional deception is wrong, except in very, very rare cases (probably no one here would ever have to do it) where it conflicts with the second of the top two laws, loving your neighbor as yourself (IOW, I'd probably lie about it if I had been hiding a Jewish family in Nazi Germany).

I see a lot of talk from atheists about the logical fallacies that Christians commit (and I have no doubt that some Christians, as well as some atheists, use them), but I've never seen an example of ones that Christians on this forum like Wonders, Narsil, Scott and myself have actually used in the context of a proof (I've seen some statements that we've made that were changed and then rightly said to be logical fallacies). Do you have any examples?

A logical fallacy is not necessarily an outright lie, although it could be. A logical fallacy is always an argument based on flawed logic, which can be used intentionally or unintentionally to make some point. Any point made under such use of logic is invalid. It would be too time consuming for me to browse through past posts to find logical fallacies, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more crop up soon. The circular reasoning of "god is good" is certainly a fallacy.

Logical fallacies are NOT something that only atheists notice and point out. One does not have to be an atheist to notice logical fallacies. Even Christians can spot them if they try.

[NH Baritone]

I see a lot of talk from atheists about the logical fallacies that Christians commit (and I have no doubt that some Christians, as well as some atheists, use them), but I've never seen an example of ones that Christians on this forum like Wonders, Narsil, Scott and myself have actually used in the context of a proof (I've seen some statements that we've made that were changed and then rightly said to be logical fallacies). Do you have any examples?

I can point to two.

Circular Reasoning (aka "begging the question"): Narsil in the most recent podcast, when asked how you know God and God's actions are good, said simply that by definition God can do nothing but good, so that any actions God takes are good, from the fall to the flood to Job's fevers to the fires and flies of Egypt's plagues. This logical leap is also frequently applied to the Bible: The Bible is the word of God because in the Bible it refers to the scriptures as being the word of God so the Bible is the word of God because in the Bible ...

Special Pleading: In this discussion the normal definitions that we use for "good" are not allowed to apply, meaning that we must give God an exemption from our language.

[Rian]

A logical fallacy is not necessarily an outright lie, although it could be. ... Even Christians can spot them if they try.

We can and do spot them

Yes, I know what a logical fallacy is. The "intentional deception" part meant using a logical fallacy on a person who you knew couldn't recognize it, otherwise you couldn't use it to bear "false witness" (the phrase that NHB used). That's what made me key on the deception part of the question NHB's use of "false witness". But perhaps I misunderstood his question - did I, NHB?

[NH Baritone]

We can and do spot them

Yes, I know what a logical fallacy is. The "intentional deception" part meant using a logical fallacy on a person who you knew couldn't recognize it, otherwise you couldn't use it to bear "false witness" (the phrase that NHB used). That's what made me key on the deception part of the question NHB's use of "false witness". But perhaps I misunderstood his question - did I, NHB?

No misunderstanding. A logical fallacy can only be considered misleading another person if it's used with foreknowledge or not corrected once someone points it out. Only then would it constitute "false witness."

I've made enough of them in my life to make logicians' heads spin, but once I recognize 'em, I try to fix 'em.

[Rian]

I can point to two.

Circular Reasoning (aka "begging the question"): Narsil in the most recent podcast, when asked how you know God and God's actions are good, said simply that by definition God can do nothing but good, so that any actions God takes are good, from the fall to the flood to Job's fevers to the fires and flies of Egypt's plagues. This logical leap is also frequently applied to the Bible: The Bible is the word of God because in the Bible it refers to the scriptures as being the word of God so the Bible is the word of God because in the Bible ...

Your latter example about God's word I agree with, but the former - well, it depends on how he used it, and I don't remember how he did (I was trying to listen and pay bills at the same time - never enough time!) If he was using it as a starting assumption to look at other things with, then it's OK. If it was a flat-out "God is good because the Bible says he's good", then I'd have problems with that as a stand-alone "this is true" claim. The problem with this type of topic is that we have to make assumptions in order to analyze it, and the assumptions may or may not be true.

Special Pleading: In this discussion the normal definitions that we use for "good" are not allowed to apply, meaning that we must give God an exemption from our language.

I don't remember this happening, but I don't think I finished the podcast, either - in what way did he do this? Is this basically a restating of what you said above? If so, then my comments above apply.

[NH Baritone]

I don't remember this happening, but I don't think I finished the podcast, either - in what way did he do this?

Rian, I would probably not do Narsil's statements justice without returning to listen to the podcast. Since you are curious about examples of Circular Reasoning and Special Pleading, the more efficient plan is for you to listen to it with your ears pricked for such occurrences.

[kobodur]

When speaking about the fairness or unfairness of God, one thing comes to mind. All of creation was cursed because one man sinned. Then, everyone that was born after that has to live with the effects of someone else's punishment. On top of that, these effects don't hit everyone with the same strength at the same time. Notice I didn't mention any inherited sin nature. I'm not sure if anyone here believes in that.

[NH Baritone]

When speaking about the fairness or unfairness of God, one thing comes to mind. All of creation was cursed because one man sinned. Then, everyone that was born after that has to live with the effects of someone else's punishment. On top of that, these effects don't hit everyone with the same strength at the same time. Notice I didn't mention any inherited sin nature. I'm not sure if anyone here believes in that.

What comes to my mind when you say that is that, logically, that means that gazelles are now eaten by lions and cheetahs because Adam and Eve munched the "magic apple," birds are dying of bird flu because of that same snack, Pompeii was destroyed because of our progenitors didn't have the good manners to leave a piece of forbidden fruit alone. Assumedly, that means that any time a star explodes and destroys an inhabited planet in some distant galaxy, it's because Adam and Eve introduced sin. The anthropocentric nature of such a discussion is, frankly, absurd. If modern science shows us anything it is that, in the grand scheme of things, human beings are far from central to the universe's functioning. As Neil Degrasse-Tyson has said, "We are a speck on a speck on a speck."

[kobodur]

When speaking about the fairness or unfairness of God, one thing comes to mind. All of creation was cursed because one man sinned. Then, everyone that was born after that has to live with the effects of someone else's punishment. On top of that, these effects don't hit everyone with the same strength at the same time. Notice I didn't mention any inherited sin nature. I'm not sure if anyone here believes in that.

What comes to my mind when you say that is that, logically, that means that gazelles are now eaten by lions and cheetahs because Adam and Eve munched the "magic apple," birds are dying of bird flu because of that same snack, Pompeii was destroyed because of our progenitors didn't have the good manners to leave a piece of forbidden fruit alone. Assumedly, that means that any time a star explodes and destroys an inhabited planet in some distant galaxy, it's because Adam and Eve introduced sin. The anthropocentric nature of such a discussion is, frankly, absurd. If modern science shows us anything it is that, in the grand scheme of things, human beings are far from central to the universe's functioning. As Neil Degrasse-Tyson has said, "We are a speck on a speck on a speck."

I was just responding to Narsil's comment in ep37 that God must be considered fair if he sacrificed his son. I was giving an example of why the god in question not what he says he is.

[mikedsjr]

I really liked this podcast. I imagine it is extremely difficult to get on a podcast and express your beliefs. I thought Narsil did a good job.

[mikedsjr]

Another profoundly absurd notion I think you have (as a persuasive argument, that is) is this notion that god is good because he is god and god is defined by good. Such circular reasoning just makes my skin crawl and it astonishes me that intelligent people, a group you seem to be part of, cannot seem to see the silliness of this kind of fallacious thinking when there are simply no facts or evidence to support it...............

sb, I understand why you state what you do......i think. The notion of Good does not begin with our understanding of good, although from an atheistic standpoint you may believe that. To say "God is good" is to talk about what is good and what is evil. There is "for God" and there is "against God". There is "good" and there is "bad/evil". His actions are good because it is a part of who He is. It certainly isn't "good is God". What good done by God is anything he does. For us, doing what God does isn't good, but doing what God says is good. We can't do the action God does. We can do the actions God commands. So good for us is different from what God does. God does not falter from what he says or does.

So for any atheist to say that it is a circular argument doesn't understand "good". When an atheist refers to good, most of the time they are refering to good as if it is higher than God. And that is not the case.

I think narsil do a good job for his time he had. I can only imagine what it would be like if Norman Geisler was his guest host. I know it wouldn't change minds. Man doesn't change the mind of others. And i certainly don't think door to door witnessing is the thing for christians to do either. Trying to change a mind in a 2-60 minute discussion is quite shallow.

[narsil]

alrighty, so I think there a large difference between defining words and circular reasoning. If there is a God, then he is the best thing, as he would be the greatest thing in all of existence. That's logical, and not a fallacy. No, it doesn't prove there is a God, I'm aware of that.

similarly, if there is a God, the He is the definition of good. there isn't another way around it. whatever you want good to mean, it can't be defined outside Him as the baseline reference.

and again, "I was just responding to Narsil's comment in ep37 that God must be considered fair if he sacrificed his son. I was giving an example of why the god in question not what he says he is." nope, I was was saying that if that's true, that he sacrificed his son for us, then yeah, I'm pretty sure that He's going to be more than fair with us.

most of these arguments raised by "Atheists" seem to boil down to an attempt throw down the "Logical Fallacy" card, and not an attempt to actually engage the argument where it lives. it's similar to saying that fish are stupid cause they don't have legs, because your only point of reference is walking on land, and you can't even begin to consider an aquatic environment.