| Straw Man Fallacy |
Straw Man FallacyThe straw man fallacy occurs when a position or belief is misrepresented; then the misrepresented position is easily defeated. The straw man fallacy is very common among billions-of-years-believers, evolutionists and atheists. It creates a distorted image of the opposing view. The straw man fallacy is usually used in refutation by misstating the argument being refuted. Rather than refuting the real argument, the other side constructs a man of straw, which is easy to knock down, making the other person(s) look bad. Examples of the Straw Man Fallacy
This quote from Bo Bennet is an excellent example of a straw man argument and also equivocation. Putting the virgin birth in the plural is a form of the logical fallacy of the question-begging epithet. But to the point of this particular fallacy, Bo confuses the faith of God with the make-believe faith of the ungodly. The faith of God is not without evidence. It comes by hearing and hearing comes by the utterance of God. When we acknowledge God speaking to us, faith comes. In reality, revelation is the only way that we can know anything for certain. And all faith comes by hearing the utterance of God.
Note how nuanced Fuz Rana's comment is. Often, fallacies are clouded in innuendo as a hedging tactic. The thoughts are clear enough that the readers get the message but unclear enough that the person committing the fallacy can easily provide an alternate explanation for their claim--"That's not what I meant."--when they are called on the fallacy.
This is a combination of the straw man fallacy, the question-begging epithet, and the equivocation fallacy. It equivocates on the word, evolution. The first time the word, evolution, is used, it means changes from generation to generation within every kind of living thing—which has indeed been observed and no one argues with that. The straw man is the implication that those who believe what God says about origins do not believe the science by which we know that there are minor changes from generation to generation. The second time the word, evolution, is used, it means molecules-to-man evolution—which has never been observed. The fallacy is used as a ploy to avoid facing the fact that there is no evidence that conclusively shows that molecules-to-man evolution actually happened and plenty of evidence that indicates that it isn't even possible.
With the complete thought expressed, this person was saying, "We have evidence that God does not exist. You simply believe God exists with no evidence. Therefore, God does not exist." It is plain that there is more than one fallacy here. There is a universal negative, which claims omniscience in the first premise. But, focusing on the very common straw man of faith being simple make-believe, this is a case of the ungodly being guilty of their own straw man accusation, while those who follow Christ have evidence. There is no evidence for any argument against God other than made-up stories and assumptions, which must be taken on make-believe faith. However, biblical faith comes by hearing the Utterance of God. This faith is divine trust and belief that is given as a free gift when we acknowledge His leading, and it is powerful to give us access to His grace, which, in turn, says His words and does His works through us. So the accusation is a straw man and an example of someone accusing another of the very thing of which they themselves are guilty.
Sandy brought yet another straw man argument by claiming that Roxanne is assuming God exists. This would be an easy position to knock down if that's all that Christ-followers do. That would make their faith no different than the faith of the person who believes in big bang, an Earth billions of years old, or evolution. The faith that Christ-followers have comes by hearing, specifically by hearing the Utterance of God.
Maybe some creationists claim this. Who knows? But, in general, creationists don’t claim that God made the Earth appear old, and the Earth doesn’t appear old. Age cannot be seen. The Earth appears created completely. God has revealed that the Earth was fully functioning from the beginning. The actual observation/science is very compatible with an Earth that is only a few thousand years old. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAvoiding the Issue Misleading Vividness Dodging the Question Irrelevant Conclusion Irrelevant Question Parade of the Horribles Appeal to Motives Red Herring Answering a Question with a Question Answering a Different Question Non-Support Quibbling Admit a Fault to Cover a Denial Arguing a Minor Point and Ignoring the Main Point Appeal to pity Galileo Wannabe (Pity) Appeal to Novelty Appeal to High Tech Traditional Wisdom The Way We Have Always Done It Appeal to Desperation Extension In a Certain Respect and Simply Appeal to Extremes Quote Out of Context Misquoting Accent by Emphasis Accent by Abstraction Contextomy Misinterpretation Playing Dumb Arcane Explanation Hyperbole Exaggeration Irrelevant Thesis Burden of Proof Uneven Burden of Proof Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy Argument to Moderation Fallacy Abuse Confusing an Explanation with Proof Moralism Ought-Is Is-Ought Naturalistic Fallacy Notable Effort Political Correctness False Compromise Lip Service Tokenism Argument by Denial Diminished Responsibility Contrarian Argument Recently Viewed |
