Aristotle explaining the nature of plants to Alexander the Great
HOW TO RECOGNIZE AN ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Argument: When we debate we have to use verses for satisfaction, just like the title of this GROUP, BIBLE debate only… Where are all the SAINTS now, It is true that they are all in heaven ???
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The The young man who asked this question is named Carlito Calledo Cabaluna-a member of the Dating Daan cult founded by Eri Soriano in the Philippines.
I have no doubt Carlito is sincere in his desire to love and serve God. He is simply very confused. He posted the argument in the group Catholic Church or Bible Only- debate,and when challenged (and much to his surprise), he will not able to demonstrate Sola Scriptura (The Bible alone as authority) as a foundational Scriptural premise. In fact, the precept of “The Bible alone” is not in the Bible at all.
First of all,the OP is false. the name of the group is CATHOLIC CHURCH or BIBLE ONLY DEBATE. This does not necessarily mean we have to be bent on one logical point of view or verse sling Scripture in order to prove a point.There are other sources of faith and Truth apart from the Bible.
The poster lacks logic and reasoning.When debating a protestant on Sola Scriptura, an appeal must be made to basic logic and how a cogent argument must be constructed.
Let’s break argument down and expose why it doesn’t make logical sense.
“When we debate we have to use verses for satisfaction,…”
Look at the last term”satisfaction”. This is a grammatical error and misses what he wanted to mean. Who said that debate can ONLY be premised on the Bible alone to the exclusion of everything else? This first argument is a logical fallacy called an “Argument from Ignorance”. This argument asserts that A is true because A has not been proven false, or we cannot know if it is true. “I have a million dollars hidden in the ground because you cannot prove I don’t have a million dollars in the ground”
There are all kinds of assertions we could make about the Bible using this kind of logical construction. Does the Bible say NOT to eat at Jack fruits everyday? Does the Bible say NOT to roll around in the mud in your suit? Does the Bible say NOT to bet the rent money on the horse races?
Certainly, if someone advocated these as Biblical premises, you would consider the burden of proof to be on them! and rightly so. That is why, when Carlito attempts to establish “The Bible alone” as a precept, he will not be able to prove it. He will not. That certainly denies him the right to demand it as a requirement for further debate.
The burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertion. This is why “innocent until proven guilty” is such a foundational precept in our society.
This argument is a false or unsubstantiated premise.
Since only Fords are cars, anyone buying a Chevy isn’t buying a car.
The statement is fallacious because it is based on an unsupported premise; “Only Fords are cars” When making an argument like this, the debater will insist you accept a premise that he cannot demonstrate.
In the case of Scripture, Carlito is failing to see Scripture as a necessary, yet insufficient part of God’s word. He is, instead, arguing that Scripture is fully necessary and sufficient as a means of transmitting God’s word, to the exclusion of all other means.Once again, the demand must be made that he prove this premise and, once again, he cannot.
Besides, Scripture itself, tells us that this notion is false.
2THES 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Here, Paul is affirming both Written Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This refutes the idea that only Scripture is the Word of God and establishes the premise that Scripture is not exclusionary truth.
The 2nd argument is this:
.”…just like the title of this GROUP, BIBLE debate only… Where are all the SAINTS now, It is true that they are all in heaven ???
The title of this group is neither Bible debate only but rather..CATHOLIC CHURCH or BIBLE ALONE DEBATE. The poster does not seem to understand the name of this group and there fore argues from ignorance.
“….Where are all the SAINTS now, It is true that they are all in heaven ???…”
Here the poster is asking to either lessen his Ignorance or to stur up a war of words.These and other questions have been answered several times,so i don’t see reason for repeating them. The poster doesn’t simply know what he is talking about. He needs to know first what a Saint is and where Saints go after they die before he can make a logical argument.
To say that something is necessary but insufficient does not mean that two contradictory sources of truth can exist side by side. This is what protestants claim Catholics believe but it is unsubstantiated nonsense. Protestants demand a ‘this or that’ philosophy when it comes to Scripture and Tradition and the Magisterium.
It is the Bible OR The Church, as if the two are opposed. Catholics believe in the Bible AND Church authority as each provides part of the larger whole.
The need for air is absolute. We must have it. The need for water is, also, essential for life. True, also, the need for food. Since all are taken through the mouth, one might argue that the mouth is only designed to receive one of these. You could argue that I do need air but, in doing so, you have certainly not made an argument that I don’t need water.
So, if you argue that Air is necessary for life, it is not the same as arguing that Air is sufficient for life. When you argue for the Bible alone, you are essentially making an argument.The principle of debating must be preceded by learning and the poster has far too much of the latter left to do before he is ready for the former. For now we can see he is very Ignorant. There is no shame in that.
Why then should one engage in illogical debates? And mind you Carlito Calledo is a member of the Dating DAAN cult founded by Eli Soriano- which is known for its intense Anti-Catholicism, his intention is to stir hatred here.