Are there logical fallacies in Christianity?

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by usfan, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Both elements are appropriate, in this debate. I can present evidence FOR the historical facts of Christianity, as well as debunk the false narratives and caricatures. I began the debate with a very broad premise, which seems to be the main point, of this debate:

    Is Christianity a logical and valid worldview?

    please allow me to make my own arguments, and not ask me to defend straw men, or 'Christians!' arguments, whomever they are. I think you will have enough, dealing with my actual arguments, without telling me what they are, beforehand.

    This is your premise. The rest following are straw men, not anything i have said. If you would allow me to formulate my own points, instead of giving me a list of straw men, there could be an actual debate, over real points and logical arguments.
    If you don't mind, i will ignore your list of straw men to choose from, and provide my own arguments. You can take them apart, then. I'm sure you're very good at dismantling the straw men.

    I'll address the only topical point in your first debating post, in this thread:

    Why does it make sense for people who have never heard of Christianity to go to hell?

    A few problems:
    1. The charge is not established. Nobody here has claimed this.
    2. It is not accurate, from either the pop Christian view, nor the biblical historical one.
    3. It is a partial straw man, using assumptions that have not been established.

    But i will address the basic premise:

    It is illogical for God to punish humanity.

    As a 'logical' problem, from the historical Christian perspective, it is very simple:
    1. Man has inherent Sin from birth.
    2. Sin has alienated humanity from God.
    3. The result of Sin is death.
    4. All humanity is doomed to die.

    This is a clearly logical progression, if you accept the assumptions. Each assumption would need to be examined separately, to see if the resulting conclusion is sound.

    Now, the 'heard of Christianity' part.

    1. Jesus came to atone for the Sin of mankind.
    2. Those who receive the forgiveness of Sin are redeemed from destruction.
    3. Part of the mission of the redeemed is to explain and distribute the 'good news' (gospel), to those who have not heard.
    4. It is not a 'fact', that any who have never heard this gospel are automatically doomed. That is a belief, for some.
    5. The judgement of God is best left to God.

    You have a few other implied points, but i prefer to let you state them yourself, as points to support your side of this debate. Don't worry about what you think my reply will be, or should be. I can handle that part myself.
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will list some positive, FOR Christianity points:

    1. Jesus was a factual historical figure.
    2. The biblical accounts are valid, historical renditions.
    3. The experiences that people have had with the power of the gospel are evidence of God's redemption.
    4. Morality and conscience are universal in the human animal, and indicate a moral awareness.. and the presence of sin.

    Not all need be addressed at once.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  3. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've made all the 'Hitler!' rebuttals i will make. Further wrangling about him seems irrelevant and deflective, to bog the debate in tedium.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  4. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Source?
    Incorrect, the flood myth being the most obvious.
    Assertion not based on evidence or logic, many people claim experiences of a god/gods, if you are logical and accept the experiences you must also except the experiences of others such as Hindus.
    Incorrect across many threads you have been asked to show one single universal moral and have failed to do so.
     
  5. RiaRaeb

    RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    10,698
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then why bring him up?
     
  6. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps a definition of the 'Christianity' i am defending here would be helpful.

    ..Historical, biblical Christianity, as defined by the Founder.. this summary from another thread should be helpful:
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  7. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats fair. Both of us will have some burden of proof. My point is that there are a lot of ways to reinterpret the bible to get out of logical contradictions, so pinning down logical contradictions for the bible is hard. But I will try my best. Below, I will try to show that non-believers who have never heard of Christianity aren't saved.

    2 Thessalonians 1:
    8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
    9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

    Romans 10:
    13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
    14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

    Ephesians 2:
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
    9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Acts 4:
    12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

    Romans 2:
    12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

    I think the bible is very clear that only through Jesus are you saved and never having heard of him is no excuse.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
  8. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I will refute all points very easily as promised.
    1. Being a historical figure does not confirm any supernatural claims.
    2. Making valid historical accounts of the non-supernatural events of the times does not validate the supernatural claims.
    3. People of all many contradicting religions have spiritual experiences. There are also claims of UFO, psychic, and spiritual experiences as well. We can't simply believe people who claims UFO or some kind of psychic or spiritual experienced based on their word alone.
    4. Morality are just rules of behavior and need evidence to be claimed true. Having moral emotions doesn't prove morality true just like having selfish or angry emotions doesn't prove selfishness or anger true. Even if objective morality exists, there is no evidence that it was created by the word of God, rather than being logically true like math independent of God.
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is certainly a common inference, from the passages (and others) that you quoted. I accept that some people and doctrines explicitly say and believe just that.

    I do not see it as being 'illogical', or nullifying Christianity, so I'm not sure how it supports your premise.

    IMO, there is some danger in dogmatically declaring who will be saved, and who will go to hell. There is enough ambiguity for the concept, that i am content to leave that judgement to God.

    But however it pans out, the judgment of God on fallen humanity is a given, and the Remedy to escape that judgment is there. It is not irrational or invalid, if the premises are accepted, as is the case with any philosophical worldview.
     
  10. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Christians believe that God has a son who is the father (aka. God) himself. And they also believe that an almighty God sacrificed his own son for the sake of mankind. That's pretty weird, you don't think so?
     
  11. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the new Testament is very clear about who is generally being saved. Jesus and his apostles walked up and down the ancient world who is going to be saved or not.

    So you don't see anything wrong for eternally punishing someone for not accepting Jesus when he had no chance of even hearing about Jesus? So being born on some remote Island far from the Christian world is a deserved hell sentence? So lets take you who would otherwise enjoy the pleasures of heaven thanks to your great faith. But instead of you being born in somewhere in the US, you are born in a prison camp in North Korea, and die of overwork at age 15. That makes you deserving of eternal hell?
     
  12. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This does not 'refute!' any of the points made. The points offered were 'evidence' FOR the validity and rationality of Christianity, not empirical proof of miracles, or God. Let's not change the debate into something else.

    Evidence FOR the validity and rationality of the Christian worldview:

    1. Jesus was a factual historical figure.
    2. The biblical accounts are valid, historical renditions.
    3. The experiences that people have had with the power of the gospel are evidence of God's redemption.
    4. Morality and conscience are universal in the human animal, and indicate a moral awareness.. and the presence of sin.

    You have only refuted an assertion that nobody is making. The debate here is the rationality and validity of Christianity, as a worldview.

    These points (among others) provide a RATIONAL basis for Christianity.

    To accuse 'Christianity!' of being 'irrational and superstitious!', you would have to refute the evidence given. You would have to prove that,
    1. Jesus was a mythical figure
    2. The biblical manuscripts are contrived
    3. Experiences with God (or the supernatural) are delusions
    4. Morality and conscience are human constructs

    Otherwise, all you have are assertions and contrary beliefs, not 'logical rebuttals.' YOU may believe differently, about these points, but that does not refute their validity as a basis for other's beliefs.

    These points provide evidence for a logical, factual basis for the Christian worldview . merely dismissing them, with no evidence, does not diminish their strength of reasoning.
     
  13. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Everyone makes judgments, based on the information they have . I submit you have flawed information, based on caricatures and propaganda distortions, from a competing religious worldview. This does not refute the rationality of Christianity, and is an argument of incredulity.

    Not much in the NT about who is not going to be saved... some obvious ones are mentioned. But to extrapolate God's judgment based on ambiguous or indefinite passages is not a good practice.

    But even if you insist on this interpretation, it does not nullify the validity of Christianity. The bar of 'Hell!' is raised, so more people are sent there, with this narrower interpretation, but it does not make Christianity 'illogical!', if you accept the premise of Original Sin.

    My personal moral judgments are irrelevant. We are following the logical progression of Christian theology, to see if it is logical.

    I am not God, nor did i establish any moral values in anyone. But if the God of the Bible did, then His judgments would be important to know, and sift from the lies, distortions, and caricatures that abound, from hostile religious competitors.

    Whether you hold to 'only believers in the historical Jesus', or 'allow God the leeway to judge people how He wills', does not nullify the rationality of Christian theology, or the implications of the worldview.

    Hell is an assumption, and is taught as a real punishment, for all who reject the forgiveness and redemption of God. The specifics of who are condemned, and who are saved does not detract from the presumption of eternal hell.
     
  14. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you are trying to present evidence for Christianity, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is evidence. These are your claims, your so-called evidence, you have to support them. You haven't provided any evidence that Jesus did anything supernatural, that the supernatural claims in the bible actually happened, that claims of personal spiritual experiences are actual experiences with the Christian God, or that morality is objective and created by the Christian God. You just made these claims without supporting them, so they are just claims, not proof, not evidence.

    So as promised, I have delivered my refutations.
     
  15. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually there are an abundance of verses in the bible that state that only through Jesus and faith in Jesus are we saved and that people who don't do this are not saved. You have not justified your claim that these verses are ambiguous or indefinite. I will post them again. These verses are very clear that non-believers and people who don't know about Christianity aren't saved. These verses are so clear about salvation only through faith in Christ that the vast majority of Christian religions make this a central tenet. And I agree with them that is what the bible says.

    2 Thessalonians 1:
    8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
    9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

    Romans 10:
    13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
    14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

    Ephesians 2:
    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
    9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Acts 4:
    12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

    Romans 2:
    12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, you have merely moved the goalposts, and refuted a strawman.

    The debate here is,

    Are there logical fallacies in Christianity?

    You are arguing about 'the existence of God!', or 'miracles are impossible!', not the logical validity of Christianity.

    For example:
    Atheism is completely illogical IF you assume the existence of God. Christianity is illogical if you presume the non existence of God.

    But 'proving!' the existence (or non existence) of God is not the debate, here, nor is it possible, with our current knowledge base. We can infer things, based on the evidence, but proving either premise is empirically impossible, at this time.

    The central assumption for Christianity is, there is a Personal, Intelligent Being Who created man and the universe.

    The conclusions and implications follow, logically, when you follow the assumptions.

    You cannot presume the assumption of atheistic naturalism and expect the reasoning to be sound, in Christianity. No more than you would expect the conclusions of atheistic naturalism to be sound if you presume the existence of God.

    So let's not change the rules, or move the goal posts, or destroy arguments that are irrelevant to this debate.

    Also, dancing around fist pumping after a irrelevant 'rebuttal' is a bit premature. You are not the judge of this debate. Nobody is. Your decision of the 'winner!' is irrelevant. The reasoning reveals the soundness or flaws of the debate, and not hollow claims of victory.
     
  17. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    These passages do not indicate a logical fallacy, whether you interpret them narrowly, or broadly. There is a judgment from God. Man is infected with Sin, and will be judged by God for his sins.

    Jesus came to provide a Remedy, so that mankind can be redeemed.

    Those who receive the gift of forgiveness will be pardoned, and adopted into the Family, or people of God. Those who do not, will continue on the path of destruction.

    It is simple reasoning, and follows logically, if you believe in the existence and Purity of the Almighty, and if you feel the sting of Sin within your conscience.

    It is an irrelevant deflection to speculate specific individuals, as only God knows a person's heart.

    A thief on the cross, received forgiveness for the simplest expression of faith. We do not, and cannot know the hearts and faith of others, so the judgment from man, regarding ultimate salvation, is useless.

    But regardless of how strictly or narrowly one interprets individual biblical passages, the core elements of Sin, the Judgement, and Salvation remain, and are logical and valid, as a worldview. Billions of people have LOGICALLY FOLLOWED this worldview for millennia. Even today, in spite of the juggernaut of anti-christian propaganda and false narratives, the Message of Salvation strikes a chord, and moves powerfully in the lives of those 'touched' by God.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  18. pitbull

    pitbull Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    6,149
    Likes Received:
    2,857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, Bro. My argument corresponds to the Islamic missionaries, but I'm an atheist, though.

    If I were someone who believes in God, I'd rather be Muslim than Christian. Muslim theology is in my opinion much more rational than the Christian stuff.
     
  19. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obviously, there are millions who agree with you. But differences of opinion or belief does not invalidate Christianity as a worldview. It is AT LEAST as 'logical and rational' as Islam or Atheism.

    IMO, it is superior, from an evidentiary perspective, but that is another debate.
     
  20. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the topic of the thread is whether there are logical fallacies in Christianity, but in your post, you were attempting to provide so-called evidence for Christianity, which means in that instance, the burden of proof is on you. Lets just look at one of your evidences; Jesus is a historical figure. How is this evidence for Christianity? How is Jesus being a real person evidence for Christianity ,any more than Muhammed being real is evidence of Islam, or Joseph Smith being real is evidence of Mormonism, L. Ron Hubbard is evidence of scientology, or Buddha being an actual prince in ancient India is evidence for Buddhism?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
  21. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All I want to establish right now is whether or not the bible claims that all non-believers including the ones who haven't heard of Jesus aren't saved. If I establish this, then I will attempt to show that this is logically fallacious. There is no point in trying to prove this is logically fallacious, if I can't even convince you that the bible is saying it.

    You say that it is irrelevant to speculate which individuals won't be saved and only God knows this. But I have shown you numerous verses, supposedly from God, telling us exactly what he is thinking here, that only Christians are saved. We can't know for certain which specific individuals are saved, because someone who seems faithful might not actually be. We can't be completely certain that currently living individuals won't be saved, because they could have a change of heart. But we can be 100% certain that all people who die without faith in Christ won't be saved because the bible says so very clearly.
     
  22. Renee

    Renee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    7,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I think you have to suspend all logic to believe there are no fallacies in the Bible

    Lots wife turned in to a pillar of salt
    Jesus walked on water
     
  23. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I provided the logical basis, not inconclusive proof that all the assumptions made are absolute.

    The same could be done with any worldview, or philosophical belief. 'Proving!' the assumptions is not necessary for the belief to be there, nor is the rationality of the worldview diminished, because of them.

    For example.
    Atheism posits a 'no God' belief. This is not proven, empirically, just believed. It is the basis for marxism and atheistic naturalism.
     
  24. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't even provide a logical basis. Jesus being a historical figure isn't a logical bases for any supernatural claim made by Christianity.

    Many atheists believe that God doesn't exist. But many other atheists simply don't believe in him because of the lack of evidence, without claiming he doesn't exist. Many atheists believe that the Christian God doesn't exist or at least the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing kind doesn't exist, but won't say the same for a general creator God, who they regard as only lacking evidence and reason to believe in.
     
  25. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is an argument of incredulity. Christianity posits a Creator that intervenes (supernaturally, at times), in the material world. So miraculous events recorded are not fallacious.

    Only if you ASSUME the premise of 'no God' are miracles irrational. Just as assuming atheistic naturalism is illogical if you presume a Creator.
     

Share This Page