Apologetic Answers to Atheism 103: What is Silly Logic?

                                by
                       Uche Okorie


Today we are going to take a look at another swaying style that we should weed out – called Silly Logic.

SILLY LOGIC

Silly topic is a bad argument style which is much more difficult to detect.

Though it addresses the issue of discussion, it still fails to make its point.

When you encounter a silly logic style you’ll notice (after I have shown you) that the walls look good but they still don’t get you anywhere.

Let me give you examples. 

These look like good convincing arguments on the surface but soon you’ll see that they are not, because of how I’ll detect and answer some of them.

Examples

  •  “Any person looking to nature for evidence of design, has to face the fact that 90% of all species ever designed are now extinct. You said God designed this? Huh! Well, he sure did a lousy job because 90% percent of all the species are done for.”

This statement is taken then as evidence against The Designer.

The Designer refers to a Divine Intelligent Being (God) creating (designing) matter or the physical realm as compared to the earth/universe coming to be on its own from a self-appearing and uncaused Big Bang.

When you encounter a statement like this; the first thing you must do is to try to simplify the argument.

What’s the simplified argument from the statement above?

 If a thing was designed it should go extinct. However, things go extinct therefore they weren’t designed.

Notice that the statement itself looks really convincing?

Let’s answer this with an illustration.

Buggy (horse) whips and carriages, the first telephone and Tv’s ever made, and so much more have gone extinct if not close to extinction. These things were designed too. Does the reason for their extinction point to the absence of a designer?

Sure, these things are man-made (man-designed) but they count in my counter argument. Because the argument raised was because a thing goes extinct, it wasn’t designed.

No! Extinction simply reveals that things change. The environment changes. Therefore the circumstances for which these things(beings) were designed for, no longer pertained.

Dinosaurs or dodo birds were designed for a particular environment. Now that environment no longer exists because of Change. The change in environment has no bearing on the Designer. All it points to is that things change.
Horse carriages gave way to cars; so buggy whips disappeared. Wetlands dried up and hence frogs disappeared. Forest were cut down to give way to sophisticated cities and hence its native animals went bye-bye. 


Extinction can tell you something about changing circumstances; but it says nothing about design. 


That’s a silly logic. The argument was irrelevant to the point being made. The statement missed the point. You can’t get what you want from that reasoning. 
Another example:

This is popular in most Atheist circles. 

“You say God made the world. Well, who made God?”

OR 

Who designed The Designer?


Dawkins added: “Even a child knows well to ask that question.”


Answer:

“A child doesn’t know how inappropriate the question is. But an adult ought to know.”


“Atheists say God doesn’t exist, therefore He could not have been made/created. Christians believe that God is eternal and wasn’t created by anyone. Which means no one in the argument believes that God was made/created. So why ask that question in the first place?”

Splendid answer. 
Lemme show you why it’s silly logic: It addresses the issue of design but fails to make a point
Simplified argument:  Unless you can find the designer of God, then the universe wasn’t designed by God.

What does knowing Mark Zukerburg’s father have to do with whether Mark designed Facebook or not? 
Next thing to do is to show why the point has been missed by bringing in related scenarios.

Example: If you go to the beach and while walking on the sand. You and your friend notice footsteps tracked on the sand.  

Reasonable approach: These are foot tracks. Who might have stepped here? 
Silly Logic: Who gave birth to the person who stepped here?
 or 

Who made the shoe or flip flops that stepped there? 

That’s missing the point. 


Another scenario: Cops found a dead body and found a bullet by the side of the head. 

Reasonable: Someone shot this guy intentionally or by accident. Either that or he shot himself. There was a shooting. 

Silly Logic: Who made the bullets or who gave birth to the Killer (that you have no clue of)? 

That’s outside the scope. Nothing to do with the evidence found. 


We say that the earth was designed because we are on the earth. Who made God has no bearing on if this earth was designed by God.


Failure to make a point. Silly logic. 


Silly Logic addresses the issue but fails to make a relevant point.



Steps to take:

– Summarize the argument.

– Study the logic or principle behind it by using examples if you can

– Show why the question or argument is irrelevant. 


Usually it’s the crowd (or  follower) that do not see the irrelevancy of the argument at first glance. Your job is to open their eyes.

Just like Trash Talk, shame on any Christian who would use silly logic on anyone to defend his faith. 
In our next session, we going to touch on the reasons why reasoning is on the side of Christianity. Stay tuned!

Shalom!!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s