Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,764
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 229:
Line 229: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Atheism and logical fallacies (view source)
Revision as of 03:11, June 17, 2015
, 03:11, June 17, 2015→Atheists and the appeal to emotion logical fallacy
Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments from outrage when criticizing the Bible - especially when they are engaging in cultural imperialism.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.php Bible critics and arguments from outrage] by [[JP Holding]]</ref><ref>[http://www.tribosblog.org/?p=1640 Atheists and arguments From outrage]</ref><ref>[http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45 Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics] by Paul Copan</ref>
Many atheists use appeals to emotion/arguments from outrage when criticizing the Bible - especially when they are engaging in cultural imperialism.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.php Bible critics and arguments from outrage] by [[JP Holding]]</ref><ref>[http://www.tribosblog.org/?p=1640 Atheists and arguments From outrage]</ref><ref>[http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45 Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics] by Paul Copan</ref>
== Atheism and the fallacy of equivocation ==
''See also:'' [[Atheism and equivocation]]
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.
For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."
Equivocation is a [[logical fallacy]].<ref>[http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm Equivocation]</ref>
=== Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe ===
[[Creation science|Creationist scientists]] demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
The [[CARM|Christian Apologetics and Research Ministy]] (CARM) points out that the prominent atheist [[Lawrence Krauss]] uses the [[logical fallacy]] of [[equivocation]] in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>
CARM declares:
{{cquote|But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....
You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum....
Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Aristotle]]]]
:1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
:2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
:3. something that is nonexistent.
:4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is [[Aristotle]]’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”
Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”
The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.
All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.<ref>[https://carm.org/lawrence-krauss-atheist-definition-of-nothing Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing], by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick</ref>}}
=== Atheism, evolution and the equivocation fallacy ===
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref>
Critics of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]
</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}
== Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy ==
== Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy ==