Apologetics & Debate: Logic part 2

Welcome

back to Passing the Torch.

I'm your host Randy Adkins and again today.

We are joined by Andrew Rappaport.

He was striving for eternity and he will continue as he has been to teach us apologetics and

debate.

How are you brother?

Well I'm doing better than I deserve and I'm looking forward to class number seven which means we have

one class left.

Right.

It's blown by isn't it?

So quick.

Yes so for folks who who are taking the class for credit remember

we we gave out those that are so to to take it for credit you want to you know either either

contact Randy, Haps or myself.

If you want to contact me I'll just say it's info at striving4eternity .com.

Info at striving4eternity .com.

That will be one way you can get a hold of me and I will get it to whoever you need but

most of the folks are in Facebook in Passing the Torch and there is a

group chat that we have and those in the chat have received already the links for

both the midterm which is due by next week and a

right now very empty list of people who are signing up for their debates.

So students you need to go to the spreadsheet and find a

partner and do some debate to get some debates.

Now we will have for students only

a private meeting that if you're if you're with the class in other words

you have to have taken your midterm final signed up for a

debate and we will I'm going to be setting up a private room where it'll be

invite only to those who have taken the class and we will be reviewing the debate that I

just had with Matt Slick in Utah at the Utah Christian Research Center on the

topic of the continuation of gifts.

We will be evaluating that.

That will be a chance for you guys as students to review that

ahead of time.

It's gonna be coming it should be released I think around July 1st but you guys will have

the assignment of reviewing that beforehand and then we will have a private meeting where we will

discuss well how well both of us did some of the things that you guys have been learning in class

we're going to use that as a way of examining some of the things we've been learning.

So that is going to be for again only for those you have to take

the midterm the final and sign up for a debate.

You've already missed the quiz well there's still time.

So Randy I don't know if you still have the link for the the midterm but you may put that up for

folks to show.

And so I literally just flew in this morning from Utah.

I was out at the Utah Christian Research Center.

I did eight sessions on different apologetic topics.

The uniqueness of Christianity, can we trust the Bible, did one on Roman Catholicism.

Yeah there we go there well that's the is that the quiz or is that the up to check

test.

Yeah that's the that's the right one.

It was the one that you didn't put the mid with the thing midterm on.

So there's the link for the midterm for those who are watching.

So eight sessions did Roman Catholicism, did social justice, did a session on

evangelism, defending the faith, did eight sessions in three days

and we wrapped up that night with a debate on do the charismatic gifts

continue to today with Matt Slick and myself.

Matt Slick is from karm .org.

I see someone saying who won Slick versus Rappaport.

I would say it was me but I might be biased.

My bride said it was me.

So I'll say this, I'll say that the audience was polled and

they're not everyone in the audience voted clearly because they only had like 11 votes.

Three people thought it was a tie, three people thought I won, five people thought Matt won.

Now obviously not everyone voted but that voting is actually tainted

because we set up ahead of time that the loser between Matt and I had to sing happy

birthday to Ed Romine which Ed said either way it sounds like it's a torturous

birthday present for him and the theory was that you know my theory was that the

worst of us ends up having to be the one embarrassed.

Well we discovered that people voted against Matt because they just would rather hear

me sing than him sing and I said that's not really a fair vote.

So that backfired.

They voted on who they didn't want to hear sing.

I don't know if that's a good thing because I'm I don't know Matt might be better than me at singing

but I've never heard either of y 'all sing.

That's a good thing for you.

You can sing here if you want.

No.

So we are in class number seven now so we have covered

things about what is the purpose of doing debate and apologetics, what is apologetics.

We talked about our character we should have when doing apologetics.

We talked about the fact that debate and arguments are not necessarily bad.

Being argumentative that would be.

We also discussed the two areas that we said we want to focus in on

is the area Laura would like to know if I would sing now.

No no Laura you do not.

It's something that you know how you get a song in your head and you can't get it out.

This is like a nightmare in your head that you can't get out.

Okay you don't want that trust me.

So we've looked at two areas that I said we're gonna focus in on this class when it comes to

apologetics and debate and those are the two areas that I think if people

want to do apologetics, Christian apologetics, the areas you need to know well

and that is hermeneutics and logic because those are the two tools that you will use the

most when it comes to debating.

You want to know that you're following the rules of interpretation.

That's what hermeneutics is.

You're following those rules of interpretation so that you're not misrepresenting God's Word.

You also want to know those rules so that when someone else is violating those rules you can

spot it and point that out.

There's the other thing that we want to be able to do is examine logic and in the

area of logic here what we are doing is looking at

statements or arguments people make to see are these good or bad arguments.

Is there is there something they've said that is illogical in their statement?

So we can have lots of examples.

I could I could say that you know every every person who has a

goatee is a is a very mean person.

Randy has a goatee.

He must be a mean person.

Now is that a good argument?

No.

Just because it's personal to you or for other reasons Randy?

For other reasons.

It's not logical.

What would be wrong with that logical statement?

So it's assuming that everybody who has a goatee is mean.

Right?

That's the illogical.

No.

Let's use it again.

Everyone who has a goatee is mean.

Randy has a goatee therefore he's mean.

This is a logically valid argument.

It's we talked about this last week.

A deductive argument is one where it is a as the statements are true and false

and therefore they could be tested.

And so when we look at it it is logically it would be

logically valid only because of the fact that and Humble Clay says bearded

brothers are better are better brothers.

We could we could use that as their okay.

It could be bearded brothers are better brothers.

Andrew doesn't have a beard therefore Andrew's not a good brother.

This because this works both ways here.

Okay?

Because it's got the same issue.

Okay?

It is a valid argument because the premise

which is in this case people who have goatees are mean that's the premise.

The conclusion is Randy has a goatee therefore he's mean.

The premise directly leads to the conclusion.

That makes it valid but not sound.

The reason it's not sound is because the premise in this case is false.

That all men that have goatees are mean.

It is true in the conclusion that Randy has a goatee but

because the premise is that that well

actually the conclusion is that Randy is mean.

So there's two premises here.

One that is false and one that is true.

The fact that all people that have goatees is mean is false.

The fact that Randy has a goatee today is true but that Randy is mean

becomes false based on the fact that the

initial premise is false.

So when we talked about deductive we mentioned the idea of

sound arguments.

So I was mixing the two logic and sound.

Yeah so sound is valid a

logically valid argument where all of the premises are true.

So you need those two pieces.

You not only need it to be where the premise directly leads to the conclusion but you

also have to have it that each of them are true.

Now we said deductive is the easiest and and if this is if you're just tuning in and and you're

saying hey this is this is all new to me well then you got to go back to last week's show

right and and tune into that so that you can make sure that you have all this because this is

really important to get down because we're gonna move on from this this week but I want to review quickly

and so what we're looking at is the fact that as we look at this a

a deductive argument is going to be one where it is

valid so all the premises directly lead to the conclusion

and it all the the premises are true that makes it sound

if either of those are not true either there's a premises that are not true or it's

not valid then it is not sound it is an unsound argument.

This is with deductive so again the deductive arguments are

those where you have statements and to just remind you a statement is going to be a

something that has a truth it's gonna it's going to provide information.

A deductive argument is going to be one that is made up of statements provide

some information and it has a truth value.

Now in the case of a deductive that truth it is clearly that it's a

true or false.

We also talked last week about an inductive argument and the

inductive argument are those that are gonna be referred to as a strong or

weak argument because here you're not having something where you

can prove each of the premises as true or false.

The deductive has a premise that is true or false.

But in eat inductive one it is where your premises are

something dealing with probability.

What's the probability of something.

Okay so let's say and I don't I don't know

where Randy lives I don't remember but we're gonna give a different state just in case to protect his guilt.

But if Randy lived in Texas we could say all Texans

or most Texans owns own guns.

Randy lives in Texas.

Therefore Randy owns a gun.

Now if I said all Texans that is deductive.

If I say most Texans I'm now talking about probability.

So what is it gonna take to make to see if this is strong or weak.

Well what we're gonna talk here so we're not talking about valid or invalid.

We're gonna talk about its strength here.

What we're gonna look at is the probability.

We might want to look at well how many Texans are there in Texas.

And then how many of those own guns.

If if the probability is in the 90 percentile it sounds like it might be a

strong argument.

Right.

However there's a couple things that we're gonna see in deductive in in the

inductive argument when we try to decide if something is a strong or weak

argument.

Because when we look at this we got to figure out well what is the

probability of something.

And so today we're gonna look a little bit deeper at that.

But when we look at the inductive argument we're gonna look to see if it's strong or weak.

Like I said if say 95 of Texans own guns and

Randy lives in Texas there's a high probability a high degree of

probability that Randy owns a gun.

I happen to know whether he does or does not own a gun.

Saying about that here right.

Because you know he would probably if he had a gun shoot himself in the foot.

But so how do you know that.

I haven't.

It must have been someone else's.

So now I know why you walk funny.

I was always wondering that weak argument is one where the conclusion does not

follow with a high degree of probability from its premises.

Okay so what you're looking at in this is evaluating each premise

primacy and look at the probability of it being true.

So deductive it is true or false.

Inductive it's the probability of it being true or false.

Okay so we want to remember that now how do we evaluate

in a in the case of a deductive well we saw that in or an

inductive so deductive that it is that you have a sound argument when you have some

valid argument and all the premises are true.

When it's when we come to deductive we talked about a word cogent.

So instead of it being sound or unsound this is cogent or uncogent.

And a cogent argument is going to be one that is strong.

In other words you have you have the premises are all a high

probability of being true and they lead directly to the conclusion and all of the

premises are true.

So in both cases all the premises must be true to have a good argument

deductive you're looking for it to be valid.

So it leads directly.

The premises lead directly to the conclusion.

Where in an inductive you were talking about being cogent and cogent means that you have a strong

probability of it being true.

Now when we look at this there's something we have to keep in mind when we

talk about probability.

So let's let's do a scenario if we have

let's say we have a number of tennis balls and we paint those tennis balls white and

black and we put it into a machine that is going to shoot the tennis balls out to

Randy who is going to attempt to return the tennis ball across the net.

Now whether he makes it over the net or not doesn't matter.

In this scenario the question is the probability of Randy getting a white

ball or a black ball.

Well in that there's some things you're gonna need to know how many balls

are there.

Okay let's say there's a hundred.

Okay how many of them are white.

How many of them are black.

Let's say they're 50 -50.

Now if they're 50 -50 and Randy has been receiving tennis balls

he has received 75 tennis balls and 45 were

white.

The probability of getting a black tennis ball is more likely now

now that gives you the higher probability.

The difference becomes when we look at this if we don't know certain things so Randy is counting

his white balls versus his black balls as they're shooting out of the tennis ball machine and he's got to calculate

because he's gonna have to give this probability and he realizes that he has

75 white balls that were shot at him and only five

black ones.

Now he may based on that alone conclude that the probability of the next set of balls

would be black.

Except for the fact that the missing piece of data could be that there were only seven black

balls all together.

Now all of a sudden the probability is higher that the next set of

ball the next ball that comes at him would be white.

So if he had 500 balls in there he's got 75 that came white

for three that came black but there were only five black ones all together and he's

only he's only seen 78 balls but there's another

400 some balls.

Right.

The majority of them are all going to be white with that difference in information

that radically ends up changing what Randy would expect to be a

high probability.

So when we talk about inductive we have to remember that with inductive we

are looking at the probability and there's several factors that we need to know.

It's not enough to say I know how many balls there are at the beginning and how many are white

and black.

That would make it a lot easier.

But a lot of the times you're not going to know that people are going to put an argument forth that

is based on something where you have to use probability in an argument and

you may not know the the information to be able to

know if it's a high probability or not.

So let's use an argument you may get when you're out evangelizing someone may say that the

the universe is millions or the the earth is millions of years old because

we can look at radiometric dating of rocks and know that the radiometric

dating shows that the the earth must be millions of years old

now this is something where we can evaluate each of these premises.

So the conclusion now in that argument I gave you the conclusion up front the earth is millions of years old.

Right.

Everyone doesn't argue in a nice way where they start with their premises and lead to a conclusion.

In this case I gave you the conclusion up front and a series of premises.

Now we can we can look at this and say do they have can we do

radiometric dating on on rocks and things.

Yes that that's something we can do on fossils things like this

the there's certain things that we end up seeing where we're now

having to use probability.

What is the probability of the radiometric dating to be able to

measure millions of years now.

The reality is that when you're looking at radiometric dating it can only go

30 ,000 some years with that piece of information.

I now know that the probability of something going of using this style to measure

millions of years wouldn't work.

So what I'm now looking at is saying well this is a probability thing and this suddenly becomes

a weak argument if someone argues that way.

But you have to know something about radiometric dating in this example to know that it becomes a

weak argument.

Now why am I saying it's not a false argument.

Because it's not the way that they'll do.

It is not an exact science.

In other words they may do some dating where they one of the things you when you when you submit like a fossil for dating

one of the issues they'll ask is what will the last where what layer of did

you find it in.

Did you find it with something else that is dateable.

What did you think it might be.

And so what ends up happening is the fact that and I know that

one of the scientists there at the Institute of creation research put something in that they

found two pieces of I forget if it was wood or or bone that they sent in for

dating and they purposely gave this.

They found it in the same layer it was right next to each other sent both in for testing one

they said that they thought it was it was a few thousand years old.

The other they said they thought it was a few million years old and they basically gave it with the evidence.

And it was amazing that both of them came back within the same dated period that they

assumed it was right.

And so when you look at that it's not a true or false argument you have to know

something about how they come up with the dating.

So when we look at this we have to say that this is a probability.

We're deducing the answer not from the exact things that we

have but having to look at it and infer something.

Okay so we deduce it through inference.

That's what we're gonna do in an inductive is to induce something

we're going to infer it from the arguments.

Okay so now let's move on from this.

So those are the deductive that we looked at last week.

We started last week on inductive and now we want to talk about ones that well they get even

stickier because the next ones that we want to talk about are ones that are even less

clear and they are conditionals.

When we we look at a conditional type of argument

this is one that is going to have something that's going to state that there's a there's going to be an

antecedent and a consequence.

So the antecedent is the statement within the conditional statement

that immediately follows something like the word if and the consequent

is the state this part of statement that will follow something that has the word then.

So you could think of this as an if -then statement.

So if something then something the way we would say this is if a

then B if B then C therefore if a then C.

So if you have something if we're saying in that example we always like to start with nice clean

easy examples it's always good to do that.

So if you got a bird outside yeah here

so if we have something where we say if you

if you are a citizen of the United States then you have a right to vote.

If you will only do it differently if you if you if you

are a a citizen of the United States then or say if you're a

citizen of Texas will stay with Texas then you are a citizen of the United States.

If you are a citizen of the United States then you have a right to vote.

Therefore all citizens that live in the in Texas have a right to

vote.

So what we're doing there is there's several if -then's right.

There's three of them in that case that lead to the the

conclusion so that in this case you have the two antecedents or the

two the two premises that are made up of the antecedents if you're

if you live in Texas you're in America.

If you're a citizen of Texas you're an American citizen.

If you're an American citizen you have a right to vote.

Those are your two premises.

They both have the antecedent and the consequence.

Your conclusion has the same.

If you're you're a citizen of Texas then you have a right to vote.

So you will see people that will do this.

Now when you have an if -then statement what you're looking for here is to see again

what are each of these statements true.

Do they directly connect from the premises to the conclusion.

So the basic pattern that we're seeing is the same.

So if you don't remember the difference between sound and cogent that's okay.

What I do want you to notice is the pattern.

The pattern is that you in each of these you have statements that provide information

you're looking for that are that are true or false statements.

So what you're looking for is you're looking for the premises making a connection to the

conclusion.

They so when you make these these premises they all have to lead to the conclusion in each one of these

that regardless how it's labeled.

And then the other thing you're looking for is are each of the premises true.

Those are the two things that you need and if you can learn to identify that

just those two things in each argument you are able even if you don't remember is this

sound.

Is this cogent.

That doesn't matter.

What does matter is that you can show that the the premises lead directly to a conclusion

and that all the premises are true.

That is what makes for a good argument.

Okay some arguments though are going to be harder to identify.

You're gonna have some arguments that and if like the deductive ones are easy because they're they're

clearly true it's something where it's it's an it's a all -or -nothing type of

thing it's true or false.

There's no wiggle room.

Hypothetical ones the if -then condition that actually is kind

of easy.

The the ones we're gonna deal with conditional statements so these are going to be

somewhat easy to identify because you're gonna hear if this then that

then you could be able to spot that.

So what you're looking for there is you want to get all those together.

Okay and so this one is the one that's similar okay to

the hype the the hypothetical syllogism which is the one that we just talked about the if

then it's a conditional.

There's ones that could be that we refer to as chain reasoning or a reasoning in a

chain.

Now this is going to be in by way I should I should have mentioned this from

the beginning.

One of the readings assignments you had was the book how to think clearly a guide to critical thinking by Doug

Earlison.

And that is what I'm using to go through this class.

So that was one of the required readings.

If you have not read that yet you should have because we're almost done with class.

No but what it does mean is that if you haven't read it yet

when you get to this these to that book this should be something then you're gonna see a lot.

It's gonna help you to dig a lot deeper.

Okay I'm not gonna ask Randy whether he did.

He's probably been up on a roof and he it's really hard to read a book on a hot roof while

roofing and and not fall down.

When you have the book in your hand just say it was actually it was a deck.

Oh it's a deck.

Yeah 40 foot long.

Yeah it's it's a it's a decent -sized deck.

Okay if you fall off the 40 -foot deck that's only less than a foot off the ground.

It's nine feet off the ground.

Okay so that would hurt you if you fall.

Okay put the book down.

Really really not when you're working and not when you're driving.

Okay.

Okay so you can see that there will be chain arguments.

These are gonna be ones that they're like the the hypothetical ones that are conditional

but these are gonna have usually a word like all.

So this is to give the the way all a are B all B

are C therefore all a are C.

So this is gonna be a little bit different because what you're doing here is looking for things that are chained

together.

I'm I'm gonna give the the example here and and it may not always

have the the all.

But you you can you can chain arguments together

but and so I want to make the distinction here to say that when you're chaining it together these are ones that are

gonna say all you can change statements together that don't necessarily

have the word all because you can have multiple premises.

So I just want to state that so people think you know reasoning in a chain this is

reasoning in a chain with with when you're using all not most if I say most

Randy if I say most which one am I.

Which one of these am I.

You know do I have deductive inductive hypothetical or a chain

inductive inductive.

Because you're looking at probability.

Good.

So with this what we're looking for is all.

So all tennis balls are yellow all.

Let's see how would I use this one.

Because I should have like written some examples down but all tennis balls are yellow.

All all tennis balls are round.

Therefore all round balls are yellow.

Now that's that's not a good argument because well actually not all tennis balls are

yellow.

Right.

So therefore even though it is formed correctly right we talked about the form

that being whether it's valid whether it's cogent or sorry whether it's

whether it's valid or whether it's a high probability right.

That's that's that form.

And then the premises have to be true.

So in this case though the form might be right.

What we end up seeing is that one of the premises is false.

Okay we could we could look at some others where you have a

disjunctive syllogism and in this case you're going to be looking for words

here that are like either not so the way that we would do

this one is to say either a or b not a.

Therefore be so so the way that you end up seeing this one come in is this is going to be something where

as an example if I say and I know Randy this is a hard one for some

people in our culture to to understand these days but it is still biblically and

true and it is well absolutely true.

But if we use this as an example that Randy

that people are either male or female Randy is not female.

Therefore Randy's male.

Right.

Okay what you have there in the either or is a what we would refer to as a

true dichotomy so it's only two possibilities.

If we were talking to some leftists they're gonna look at that argument say that's not true because you have a third

option and they make up some new gender Z or whatever it is

they call themselves right.

So there they would say this is not logically valid because they find a

third option.

When we talked next week about logical fallacies this that would be a fallacy of the

excluded middle.

And the idea there is that if I say something if I said that

the Bible is only to be read in the King James or the Bible is only

in King James English or New World Translation the Bible is not in New World

Translation therefore it's in King James.

The problem with that is in that first premise we have other translations

right.

So there's other things that could be substituted.

So when we talk about this the either or has to be a true dichotomy in other words

there's only a or B.

There's no other options.

There is no C.

That's why with genders you're male or female.

If we were to say the light either is on or is not on.

Well there's no other option there.

So in that we can we could take this so that the reason this

argument is is called a disjunctive syllogism is

because it always has the either or statement in it.

So that's how you can notice this one.

Some people refer to it as either as an either or argument but this one is going to be you

can spot it by that language either or and and

so with this one what you're again doing you're looking at the form and the truth of the premises.

And if you just remember those two things you have to identify it will be much easier for you

to see because what you want to do and I said this in the very first class you want to be

looking at what the premises are because if any of those premises are false you

can then point that out.

This is what I end up doing in debate.

I'm listening for the premises more so than the conclusion a lot of times

now what I am looking for the conclusion I'm just looking is okay.

Is this formed.

Well does the premises lead to the conclusion properly.

And then the other thing I'm listening for is each premise to see.

Okay.

Does the premise come to be true.

Is it true.

Or in the case of inductive I'm gonna have to look at the whether it is strong whether there's a higher or weak

probability and so I'm trying to make this easy.

I want you guys to learn some of the technical stuff as well because most people just look at it and say oh well

we're just going to look at the you know the the logical fallacies.

And people memorize the fallacies.

But there's a ton of fallacies dozens and dozens and dozens of them.

You have to memorize all of those.

But instead of memorizing all of those an easier way is just to get in the practice of

identifying the form and the truthfulness of the premises that is a much easier way.

So I may not remember the fallacy.

We're gonna go over probably at least a dozen of them next week.

Okay that'll be the last class.

But that is not the like I may not remember them all.

There's there are so many different fallacies out there and we have to understand those.

But I don't need to understand those to know for example the one that I just gave.

If there is a third option I don't have to remember what the the fallacy of the excluded middle

it's also sometimes called the either -or fallacy.

But what I do have to be able to identify is if I can spot that the the

there's a problem with the premise.

You're saying it's got to be a or B but if I know of a C then that answers.

So the example often given for this would be.

Or we say like if it rains okay I'm sorry if the ground

the ground is either dry or wet.

Or you know I'm trying to I'm trying to think of a good one offhand because the typical one we would use for stuff is say like

if it rains the ground is wet the ground is wet therefore it rains.

Right.

When I look at that I can immediately say well there's something missing because there's other options.

Mm -hmm.

Right.

Same thing with the either or in the either or it has to be a true dichotomy.

So there can only be two options.

So if you if someone says if you hear them in their argument say

either or right and they give you two things they're giving

you this type of destructive syllogism.

So now what you're looking for is the first thing I look for when I hear that is is there a third option.

If there's a third option I now know that that argument is a bad argument.

And what am I going to do point that out.

Do I need to say sorry you're you're violating the the fallacy of excluded middle.

No.

I don't need to remember that.

What I do need to know is how to point out that the arguments bad

I had when I was out in Utah the the talk that I thought was the least

controversial was the one on evangelism.

Mm -hmm.

I mean I talked about social justice.

Everyone everyone was in agreement.

They fine.

I talked about how to defend the Bible.

I talked about differences of evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics.

No problems.

I I talked about the uniqueness Christianity.

No problem.

Whether you could trust the Bible.

No problem.

I talked about evangelism and people were triggered.

We had a couple that was triggered and they they made statements that you know

well here here's basically the statement.

They said Jesus didn't die like no one goes to hell for their sin.

When Jesus was on the cross he paid for all their sin.

Universalist.

And well no not because they said the only reason people are in hell is for the sin of unbelief.

Now I noticed something in there.

Now by the way when when I said something to him and he

said that's a straw man and I had to say I'm sorry but it's not a straw

man because I'm using the proper definition.

He wanted to talk about election.

And when I answered he said that's a straw man.

I said no.

I said a straw man is when you set up a false definition to easily knock it down

right now that is where you hear people that throw

something out that's a straw man argument.

And if you don't know what the straw man is you might think okay but when you when you and that's why we are going to look at some of the

fallacies so that you know what they are.

So someone does that to you and throws it out.

It's like you can spot that that's a problem.

But it was a logical problem that I pointed out in his argument Jesus died for all

sins.

Unbelief is a sin.

People go to hell for their unbelief.

You see if Jesus paid for all sins that's a that is an all

category.

Well unbelief is a sin.

So if unbelief is a sin then it had to have been paid for.

Yep.

And this is where I tried to reason with him logically to see that there was a problem.

Now it was kind of funny because they said that earlier in the conversation and so I knew what their view

was.

But I continued the conversation but I said did Christ die for all sins.

And they both this couple both of them said yes.

So I said is unbelief a sin.

And the wife said yes.

And the husband went.

Well it depends now.

Why did he say that.

Because he knew if he says yes he had a illogical

argument yet a bad argument.

Yeah.

So he wanted some wiggle room.

Right.

The reality is he had already stated to me that the only

sin that people go to hell for is the sin of unbelief.

You see.

So by getting that up front I could use that later.

Mm -hmm.

So that this is an example of how it's used.

And if you go you can go to Utah.

Just search for the Utah Christian Research Center.

They will have these out you know on their YouTube page they're gonna be doing it over a period of eight days.

The first one will be the debate and then they will do them all together.

So the video I'm referring to there will be video number nine.

So you gotta wait nine days.

So once the debate comes out you gotta wait nine days for it and and you can see the exchange

all.

Right.

So this is how we try to use these and like I really really want to emphasize

that you don't need to know all the fallacies.

You just need to be able to look for the form.

In other words do the premises lead to the conclusion.

And are the premises true.

So it's the form and the truth of the premises.

That's what you're looking for.

Okay.

And as long as you do that you'll be you'll be able to spot it even if you don't know which fallacy it is.

Okay.

So now one of the things that we we want

to look at in a little bit of time that we have left is you know we

we want to think about what to do when someone makes an illogical statement.

You have a couple options when you're doing apologetics or debate you don't have to point it

out right away.

You don't have to point it out at all or you could you have the option

but I mean I tend to want to point it out and you know so that

it's it's clear all right.

I'm not gonna say what this is but in the private viewing that we'll have

for the debate and and I may invite Matt Slick in for that so that we can get

both sides in the in the discussion of the debate but you will see in that

debate that there is something that I will state up front using a harmoniutical principle

that I will state in my opening that we then see that will be a major point for

Matt's argument which is why you you you'll have to decide whether

he made a good harmoniutical argument for why he does that.

The difference is I will lay out which rule it is.

I'll explain the rule and Matt ends up explaining the way he does study.

Okay so you'll have to decide whether he followed the rules or not.

So that's that's the sort of things we look for in this we're looking for.

Are the premises true.

Are they following to the conclusions.

And and so therefore I don't necessarily need to know all of those all those things.

So let's let's take just quickly

talk about the some issues with the the one we're going to deal with the

most.

We kind of dealt with it already but it is it.

We have the inductive right.

And that's going to be harder because you know the inductive reasoning is

going to be something that it's it's you're dealing with probabilities right.

And so you're looking at at the trying to predict what's going to happen

these are going to be ones that these are the hardest ones to deal with.

Okay.

And and that's why I've I wanted to come back.

I started it last week I wanted to finish up with it this week is because it is one of the

more difficult ones to deal with and it is one that is what you're going to deal

with the most.

It would be great if everything is deductive and I could just say it's true.

It's false done.

Okay.

Oh I just saw a comment there that last comment.

If you want to put that one up I should really answer that very important question said who

bought dinner.

Andrew.

Well I am happy to announce that once again.

Matt slick called me a jerk because as smart as he thought he was in

getting a meal paid he failed in his logic.

So here's here's what happened.

Humble clay we we went to a Mexican restaurant.

Matt figuring that I don't know Spanish he could talk to the cashier in Spanish to

say that he wants to pay for the guy behind him and the woman.

So he says to her that he wants to pay for the two of us.

He's already ordered.

I've yet to order.

He assumes that because I don't know Spanish I don't know what he's doing.

As he hands her the credit card and she puts it on the side of the counter.

Well Matt makes a major fupa.

He decides to walk off and use the restroom as I am ordering.

I lean over the register and take Matt's credit card no longer has in her

possession and I hand her my credit card.

So as Matt is walking out of the restroom comes around the corner she has now rung up the bill on my

credit card.

I am waving his credit card in his face in my hands saying sorry Matt

you didn't buy lunch.

So the the goal was that the winner of the debate was gonna be able to buy dinner

on his radio show that he was gonna be buying me lunch.

And I said fine I'll buy dinner you know.

But turns out we only had dinner and I got to buy.

So that's yeah humble clay it was a fail again.

For folks who don't know Matt slick it took him nine years to actually buy

me.

We we've had this kind of you know fun contest back and forth where he tries to outsmart me.

And every time I get him he did get me an epic fashion on the 100th episode of

Apologetics live he had food delivered during the show.

It was goodness.

So you can back to episode 100 of Apologetics live and watch that poor poor Jason Lyles is explaining his

brilliance and why Apologetics is important.

And I got someone at the door giving me food.

It was it was really funny.

So all of that aside what we end up seeing when we do the inductive we're looking for

arguments with their the strength of their arguments by based on the probability.

And this is where it does become hard especially if you're in the area of a debate because

you may not know all of the pieces of information that's needed to be able to

decide that this is this argument is strong or weak.

You might not know the probability.

The examples I gave when we talked about the the tennis balls how many of them are white how many of them are like

you may need to know how many are left and how many of each color right.

So there's more you have to do to understand that.

And so this is when we look at the ones that we're looking at the cogent whether the argument is cogent

or uncogent these are going to be harder and so you want to be able to spot

whether it is one of these inductive type of arguments or whether it's one of the deductive type.

Okay because that will make the difference.

Now next week what we will be doing is we will look at different

logical fallacies.

We're gonna spend our time looking at the well I mentioned some straw man argument

ad hominem argument the excluded middle argument true Scotsman argument all of

these different ones we're gonna look at so that you have some ideas of how to answer these things how to spot them

now it is helpful when you can when you can say that

you know hey that's a that's a no true Scotsman fallacy.

If you if you recognize what it is and you know how to say that you know how to point it out it will strengthen

the point you you would you should be able to point out as I did with the in this class with the

the fallacy of the excluded middle I would I would point it out.

So Randy gives me an argument and there's there's he says

you know tennis balls are either yellow or orange.

Now I could say that is a logical fallacy.

That's the fallacy of the excluded middle because I happen to have some tennis balls that are blue

or the tennis balls could be blue.

So what am I doing there.

And this is a tactic that you can use in debate.

This isn't for apologetics.

Not so much because apologetics what's our goal the gospel.

Right.

But you may be doing a debate and in a debate it's it's good to be able to point out

what the fallacy is they're doing now in it.

When you're doing apologetics you could still do that because someone is is

you know they're there.

It is a form of debate and it strengthens your argument when you

rightly know what the fallacy is and can point it out but it but don't just point it out

explain the fallacy.

Why.

Because when you explain the fallacy it adds weight to it.

If the the gentleman who told me well that's a straw man argument well he didn't actually have the right definition of a

straw man.

So later when he said something to me that actually was a straw man I was able to point out well that actually

is a straw man argument.

Because you're the definition you're using for election is not the right definition

that you see you're you're saying that Calvinists are wrong in their use of election but you're using a

different definition of election that that change of definition is what makes it a straw man.

So when you not only use the fallacy but explain why it's a fallacy two

things happen.

Especially if you're doing apologetics and there's other people around if you say that's a that's a fallacy of the

excluded middle and the other person has no clue what that is and the people that are listening have no clue

what it is they just move on and ignore it.

If I say that's a fallacy of the excluded middle and I'm talking to Randy and Randy knows what it is but someone else is sitting

there listening in and they don't know what it is.

They don't know what's wrong with the argument.

Right.

If your goal is to convince the two people you're talking to and only one understands it then that

doesn't help you.

So by giving the definition by saying well that is a fallacy of the excluded middle because there

is a third option it is not a true dichotomy there the tennis ball could be blue

right.

Now what I've done is define it so that the others know and that way

it strengthens it's a tactic you can use in debate.

But it strengthens your argument by defining it pointing out why it's a logical fallacy.

Now if you don't know the logical fallacy that's okay.

Because if you remember what we learned in this class as long as you are sitting there and looking for are all the

premises true and the form is it's properly formed

you're looking for that or not.

So if you find any of the premises that are false or you see that it's not properly formed then

you can point that out whether you know which fallacy is or not.

Okay.

So I hope that this has been helpful.

I hope that you've learned a lot.

If you have may I suggest that you share these classes with people right.

Join us in the passing the torch Facebook group so that you

can be part of the quizzes and tests again the midterm is due next

week.

So if you want to be part of that private group that is going to be evaluating the debate

that Matt and I had you better make sure you get your your midterm in the right

there at the bottom.

I know.

Right.

You did.

You did yours.

Yes you did.

But you must get your mid you you must get at least the midterm the final and schedule the debate.

Okay so those are the three things you have to do we will have

next week I will give you the link for the to schedule the debates

so that we can have that ready for you so that if you want to do that you'll be able to.

So I think that is all that we have for for today.

So with that I will hand it over to you to close out class.

Right.

All.

Right.

Well you heard him.

If you want to join the class if you want to join us and all those things

midterm get a hold of one of us me on Facebook Randy Adkins.

Yeah you said it was info at striving for eternity.

Calm calm.

Correct.

Okay for reaching Andrew Rappaport and with that

have a blessed thank you.