A question is posed in such a way that a person, no matter what answer he/she gives to the question, will inevitably commit him/herself to some other claim, which should not be presupposed in the context in question.
A common tactic is to ask a yes-no question that tricks people to agree to something they never intended to say. For example, are you still as selfish as you use to be? The question presupposes that you were selfish in the first place. You are bound to admit that you were self-centered in the past. Of course, the same question would not count as a fallacy if the presupposition of the question is indeed accepted in the context of the conversation.
This type of question presupposes three or more presuppositions about the person that is being asked. It’s also a false dichotomy in a sense because it seems to give you only two possible situations. Of course, if the presuppositions aren’t true, then there are more possible answers. The questions aren’t even a worthy question of being asked. Here are some more examples:
Have you stopped to beating your wife yet?
It’s either yes or no because it assumes that you’ve beaten your wife in the past. If you say yes, then that means you that you’ve beaten your wife in the past and if you say no then you are still beating your wife. It’s a fixed question which seems to be a better was to state this fallacy. Simply shift the burden of proof since thieved made a claim about your marriage. This also presupposes that your married in the first place.
How long can you survive without your Phone?
This question assumes that you need your Phone to survive and that humans somehow need phones to survive. Sure they help, but we can for sure survive without them. This question is loaded with the presupposition that one needs a phone in order to survive. It’s a fallacious question. It also assumes that you have a phone.
Christians, don’t you know your atheists to?
This question is used to try and show that Christians and everyone are atheists about other Gods. Such as Baal or Zeus. This question presupposes more than 3 things. It assumes a different definition of atheism than what is usually used. It assumes that the Christian God is the same thing as Roman or Greece Gods. It presupposes the same definition of God. It presupposes that we are talking other Gods, rather than the Christian God. It presupposes that the evidence for other Gods is the same for the Christian God. Finally, it assumes that past Gods are relevant to the conversation of a Christian and Atheist. I hope you get my point of the presuppositions of this meme among online atheist trolls. If an atheist shows this to try and shift the burden of proof on you, then you shift it back by showing the presuppositions that need to be established as true.
Be aware of complex or loaded questions that can be very misleading that assume what they are asking is true. It’s most likely that they will commit the begging the question fallacy as well in their loaded question. Loaded questions are very fallacious and should not be used by Christians or Atheists. Add this to your list of fallacies that you should not commit. By the way, when are you going to subscribe to the YouTube channel.
Please share this article with someone.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb-DExmWLVwye-pIQcnhA8A
In arguing for a claim, the claim itself is already assumed in the premise. Example: “God exists because this is what the Bible says, and the Bible is reliable because it is the word of God.”
I assume the Bible is true in this premise and have not shown why it is true based on evidence of its reliability. If I say the Bible is true because it says so, then this would be circular reasoning and also begging the question. An argument assumes what it’s trying to prove is true. Begging the question seems to be misleading about the fallacy. If you assume what your trying to prove, then you beg the question of why it is true. This is very simple to grasp and I’ve come to realize that. Begging the question is an argument with a missing premise. It just contains the conclusion in a nutshell. It’s missing the statements that lead to the conclusion or it contains statements that are the conclusion, but said in a different way.
Some presuppositions commit this fallacy of Begging the question. This is why I don’t hold presuppositions on things that we have information about. Of course, everyone holds certain presuppositions about things that we can’t establish. I assume that I am not a brain in a jar being stimulated on. Everyone assumes this because it’s not necessary to prove or disprove. If I have a presupposition on something that can be proved or disproved, then that would implicitly be begging the question. If I have a presupposition that the Earth is flat, then obviously I would be irrational and begging the question since I have not proved it to be flat. We have data to prove the Earth not to be Flat. We must be careful with our presuppositions.
Here are some examples of begging the question fallacies:
My client is not guilty because he is innocent.
Evolution is true because evolutionists say it’s true.
The Bible is real because it’s says so.
Evolution is true because of similar DNA and Homology of Species.
Why not a Common Designer rather than a Common Ancestor?
Because of Evolution is true.
Why is Evolution true?
Because of similar DNA and Homology of species.
Instead of showing why similar DNA and Homology proves evolution and not a Common Designer, they assume it to be true and therefore, argue in a circle. In Fact, Common DNA and Homology would support a Designer better, since it’s more efficient to use the same design. All Cars have similar designed parts such as wheels, engines, and so on. Computers use the same type of parts such as processors, hard drives, Ram chips, and so on. Evolution seeks to answer the diversity among species, but at the same time claim that similarity between species proves evolution. It seems to me, that common DNA and Homology would be better explained by a Common Designer.
Begging the Question is a fallacy that can either be explicit or implicit. If an atheist assumes naturalism to be true, then he begs the question in debates of whether God exists. If a Christian assumes God exists before they seek proof, then they are essentially begging the question. Whichever worldview you are, don’t beg the question when you try and convince others of your worldview.
Please share this article with someone.
Tumblr Page: https://christiantruththroughapologetics.tumblr.com/
Genesis is the account of creation in the Old Testament that deals with God’s creation and his purpose. God created humans in his image and were almost perfect. They had to past the moral test which was not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They failed and were kicked out of the garden. Man had chosen to go their own way instead of God’s way. Their lineage goes up to Abraham’s, who is considered to be one of the most faithful people in the Bible. Abraham makes his covenant with God in which his people will inherit the land of Israel. His son Isaac, is the father of Jacob and Esau. Jacob is chosen to be the one who will start the nation of Israel. Jacob starts the twelve families which represent the twelve tribes of Israel. They move to Egypt from their affair of selling Joseph into slavery. Joseph forgives his brothers and states that God meant it for the saving of many. For the next four hundred years, the Israelites lived in peace in Egypt. Pharaoh starts his massacre of the first born of every Hebrew family. Moses is put in the Nile river in hope of escaping death from pharaohs men, who are commanded to kill all the first born Israelite Children. Moses is saved and lives in Egypt for the next 40 years of his life. He is cast out for killing the Egyptian that was beating the Hebrew slave. He is called by God at the burning bush, to free his people by warning pharaoh of his evil ways towards God’s people. The ten plagues come and Israel escapes through the Red Sea. The tabernacle is set up for worship and the laws are given throughout the rest of the Pentateuch. Moses’ generation failed the covenant, so they don’t get into the promise land. Joshua is the next leader who leads Israel into the promise land, but they must take it over from the Canaanites. They inherit the promise land until Joshua passes away. The era of Judges takes place with the cycle of Israel sinning, conflict with enemy nations, Israel repenting, Judge frees them, and the judge dies.
After the period of the judges, Israel wants a king and elects Saul over God as their king. This leads to a downfall of Israel because of Saul having no heart for God. Saul meets his demise at the fight of Gilboa. David is elected by Samuel to lead Israel. David is the second character in the Bible who his considered to be one of the most faithful, just like Abraham. David expanded Israel’s borders by his faithfulness towards God and allowed a theocracy for the nation of Israel. Solomon, who was one of David’s son, he is the third king of Israel. Solomon had half a heart for God for he was committed towards God, but maintained in his sin of polygamy and inter marriage with enemy nations. He is considered to be one of the wisest men in the Old Testament for his writings in the book of Proverbs. Eventually, Israel falls to their enemy nations for their sins and failing to see what the prophets were trying to warn Israel about. Babylon and Assyria destroy both Samaria and Jerusalem. Israel is cast out into exile, but eventually come back through Cyrus of Persia. They end up rebuilding the wall and temple because of Ezra. This is where the Old Testament leaves off. Four the next four hundred years, Israel waits for the messiah. The Old Testament is about God and his people of Israel.
The Old Testament is related to Christians because it describes what happen before Christ and why Christ is so important. The Old Testament is not prescriptive of what should have happened, but describes what happened. The old covenant law was not God’s intended covenant, but rather to deal with our horrible human nature. God dwelt with certain things that were not part of his original intention such as polygamy, indentured servants(slaves), and the killing of other nations. Christ came to fulfill this past covenant to make the new covenant. The new covenant is even closer to God’s full intention. The book of revelations reveals his final intention of the New Heavens and New Earth. This relates to me personally because I realize how God feels about his people. As a Christian, the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament to demonstrate the failures of man’s works and the success of God’s works. God’s ways are higher and man’s are not.
Please share this article with someone.
Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true.
The problem with this type of reasoning is that it ignores the possibility that there are other conditions apart from P that might lead to Q. For example, if there is a traffic jam, a colleague may be late for work. But if we argue from his being late to there being a traffic jam, we are guilty of this fallacy – the colleague may be late due to a faulty alarm clock.
Of course, if we have evidence showing that P is the only or most likely condition that leads to Q, then we can infer that P is likely to be true without committing a fallacy.
Cars break down due to flat tires.
My car broke down.
Therefore, it was due to flat tires.
Unless I give evidence that my car broke down due to a flat tire then it does not follow logically that my tire broke down due to a flat tire. If I affirmed that then I would commit the fallacy of Affirming the consequent based on only the first premise cars break down due to flat tires. Evidence is needed to show that my car broke down due to a flat tire.
Men get hurt from marriage.
John is a man.
Therefore, John got hurt from marriage.
This example is obviously a joke and I’m not even married. Let’s assume that men get hurt from marriage for sake of example if it is a bad marriage. If john is a man and he gets hurt, then If I assert that he got hurt from marriage only based on premise one then I would be affirming the consequent solely without actually evidence. I would need evidence showing that John got hurt from marriage.
Dogs are brown.
I have a dog.
Therefore, my dog is brown.
Last example and the simplest example. Dogs are brown, but not all are brown. I have a dog, but I do not affirm that my dog is brown based only on the fact the dogs can be brown. I would affirm that my dog is brown based on me physically seeing that my dog is actually brown. Even though that my dog is black, I didn’t affirm the consequent only on the fact that dogs are brown.
Affirming the Consequent can be detected if it is contained in this logic form:
If P, then Q.
This is an invalid form because even given that the premises are true; the conclusion doesn’t follow logically. Just because Q happens does not mean it is the cause of P. P is the cause of Q. If my car had a bad engine, then it will break down. This is true statement based on solely Q and the result is P. This is an important fallacy to remember when analyzing conditional statements. For example, If God exists, then miracles are possible. Miracles are only possible if God exists. This fallacy is not to complicating and is easy to spot.
Please share this article with someone.
Social Media Links:
I don’t believe in God. You just have to have faith. There is no evidence for God. Jesus never existed. I see no reasons to believe in Christianity. People don’t come to Christ through arguments. Why does a Good God allow Evil? Why are Christians such Hypocrites? Why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? Are the gospels reliable eyewitness accounts? Are eyewitnesses even reliable as a source of truth? Does God even exist?
These questions and objections to Christianity are good for Christians to ponder about. My first encounter with these questions destroyed my faith because I wasn’t exposed to good answers to these questions and objections. Apologetics deal with these questions and objections by providing a solid defense for the truth of Christianity. It deals with these questions by answering them with well thought answers. Objections are dealt with by providing well thought out responses and refutations. Apologetics is the cornerstone for the foundation that holds the truth and validity of Christianity. As Christians, we are commanded to study apologetics and give a defense for the hope within us (1st Peter 3:15). Isn’t also helpful to know why something is true in the first place? I would hope the answer is yes because otherwise you are left with unbiblical faith. This type of faith would be blind faith which is believing without evidence. The type of faith described in the Bible is a type of Forensic Faith or trust based on evidence. James Warner Wallace has made a case for this in his book Forensic Faith.
Through my journey as a Christian, I’ve realized that the truth of Christianity is being attacked intellectually. The New Atheists have accused Christians of being irrational for believing in Christianity. Are they right? What are the main reasons for why Christians believe in Jesus of Nazareth described in the Bible? Typically, a person believes in the Christian faith because they were raised in a Christian home, they’ve had an experience with Christianity, or they just like the religion. Are these actual rational reasons for believing Christianity to be true? These are just subjective, personal preferences that have no truth value in reality. If Christianity is true, then these would not be the reasons to show why. Atheists are unfortunately are right when it comes to modern day Christian’s lack of pursuit for intellectual reasons for their beliefs. Does this mean that Christianity is not true? Are their actual intellectual reasons for believing Christianity to be true? Apologetics strives to answer these questions.
Again, apologetics means to give a defense for something. Christian apologetics seeks to give a defense for the truth of Christianity. Modern Christians lack the proper theology of apologetics that Christ and his followers practiced. In the book Forensic Faith, James Warner Wallace makes the case for why Christians should make the case for Christianity. He shows how the main man Jesus himself, made a Case for his divinity. He performed miracles in his own name to establish his deity as God incarnate. Paul reasoned with the Pharisees that Christ was who he claimed to be. He referred to the scriptures to show how they establish his position as messiah. Justin Martyer wrote the First Apology, which was the first apologetics document written to the polytheists of the Roman Empire. He made the case for theism and the truth of Christianity like every Christian should. These early Christians were apologists because they had experience with the greatest apologist who was Christ himself. Apologetics is of the upmost importance since is reflects the likeness of Christ.
Apologetics is important for five main reasons. First, It’s a commandment from Scripture; 1 Peter 3:15 demonstrates this point because Peter tells us to give a reason for the hope within you. We must remember the rest of the verse “Do this with gentleness and respect”. We can give an argument without being argumentative. We can give a defense without being defensive. Basically, we have to present our case without a condescending attitude because no one will listen to what we have to say. We will be shut out if we break down the door. The second reason for why apologetics is important is because it helps us with our own doubts. If we have unanswered questions that you don’t know how to deal with, then you will most likely fall from our faith. If you have apologetics under your belt, then you will be able to deal with these questions and concerns. Thirdly, apologetics will help equip us better for evangelizing. When people cast their questions and objections, we will be able to answer them. The questions and objections answered to those we witness too will leave a good impression of Christianity. If Christians are prepared to give a defense for the gospel, then those asking will have good reasons to believe. Fourthly, apologetics helps us to fulfill the first commandant to love the Lord our God with all our mind. If we love the Lord with all our mind, then we show our commitment towards him. Finally, apologetics glorifies God because it shows why he is the ultimate reality. God is established as the ultimate truth and why we should put our faith in him. If Apologetics is falls behind, then the truth of Christianity will fall.
Please share this article with someone.