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/