1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing.
Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere.
Examples:
33 comments
"1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified."No, in logic, precedent means nothing. Just because something has been done one way for centuries doesn't mean that it is right.
The burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. For instance, if one asserts that God is real, one must provide clear, unbiased evidence for that position.
"The old tests the new."
No, the old and the new should be tested seperately and weighed on the own merits.
"The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
No. See above.
"Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity."
Well then, since Christianity came after Judaism, the burden of proof is on Christianity. Since Judaism came along after pagan religions, the burden of proof is on Judaism. You see where this is going?
"The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself."
Looking for the truth by comparing fairy tales to fairy tales in a pointless exercise.
"Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible."
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
"2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing."
A favorite tactic of many Christian apologists.
"Circle If you end where you began, you got nowhere."
True.
"Examples:
1.Proving Allah by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Allah."
Or, proving God by the Bible and the Bible by God.
"2.Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad."
Or, proving Jesus by the Bible and the Bible by Jesus.
"3.Proving Islam by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Islam."
Or, proving Christianity by the Bible and the Bible by Christianity.
Do you notice a similarity here?
There are two separate fallacies involving historical precedent.
Even if this bullshit was valid and the Qur'an had to prove itself over the bible, the bible would in turn have to prove itself against all the religions that were earlier still, and so on back to the beginning of humanity. Kind of a Herculean task if you ask me.
In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority.
Then you'll have a hell of a time defending all of the places the Bible contradicts the Vedas.
His whole arguement hinges on the Babble having been "verified" somehow. Last I heard, saying "Goddidit" doesn't qualify as verification. Using the "logic" that the Babble SAYS it is itself the Word of God, I could write a book claiming I'M god and use that as "proof" I was :P
As Papabear pointed out the stuff about "historical precedent" is bullshit.
Epic of Gilgamesh anybody?
2.Proving Muhammad by the Qur'an and then proving the Qur'an by Muhammad. How did this guy get Dr. in front of his name?
Patriot University? Or just plain bullshitting...
Justin GG said: "How did this guy get Dr. in front of his name?"
...The burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority. both be examined; whichever one is supported by evidence is retained. You can't reject something because an authority says so. Old does not mean correct; to suggest that the Bible gets priority over the Quran because it's older is an appeal to tradition, a fallacy described above.
2. Arguing in a circle...
Stop right there! Don't worry about what's in Muslims' eyes; you've got an old growth forest in your own.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity.
No, Anoyn, you fool! The right religion are worshipers of the Great Old Ones whose path goes straight back through the rise and fall of empires, species, worlds, galaxies, etc. Hence, H.P. Lovecraft is right... I guess.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
