Logic Fallacies

Media was wrong before

The media was wrong before is the fallacious idea that if an information source is occasionally incorrect, then it is wholly untrustworthy and none of it should be taken as truth. This is not logically valid because it is possible for information sources to make a stupid mistake and still generally be correct. The only way to prove that a source is not trustworthy is to show an overwhelming pattern of mistakes. P1: Source was wrong about X. P2: (unstated) If Source has been wrong before, then Source should never be trusted. C: Source should never be trusted.

Nadir Fallacy

The nadir fallacy occurs when someone evaluates a group using the worst group members.

Appeal to Fear

An argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side. "Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches."

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe. "That can't be the Senator on that sex-tape. If it were, he'd be lying about no knowing her, and he's not the kind of man who would lie."

Argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad populum ("argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth.

Galileo Gambit (Galileo Fallacy)

Asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right - "everyone says I am wrong, therefore I am right." P1: A is X and Y P2: B is X. C: B is Y. P1: Galileo was persecuted and was correct. P2: I am persecuted. C: I am correct.

Design Fallacy

Assuming that because something is nicely designed or beautifully visualized it's more valid or better. "Elementary OS is the most well designed and best looking Linux distribution, therefore it is clearly superior."

Gambler's Fallacy

Assuming the history of outcomes will affect future outcomes. "The coin has landed heads 10 times in a row, therefore it is more likely the coin will land tails this time."

Genetic Fallacy

Attacking the cause or origin of the claim rather than it's substance. "Of course, mainstream liberals aren't going to say Barrack Obama is a muslim."

Appeal to Pity

Attempt to induce pity to sway opponents. "The former dictator is an old, dying man. It's wrong to make him stand trial for these alleged offenses."

Appeal to Popular Belief

Claiming something is true because the majority of people believe it. "Milk is essential for healthy bones."

anecdotal evidence

Discounting evidence arrived at by systematic search or testing in favor of a few firsthand stories. "I'm going to carry on smoking. My grandfather smoked 40 a day until he dies at the age of 90."

Danth's Law

I'm thinking, a good rule of thumb might be that if someone goes and announces that they've won an internet forum discussion, they probably very much haven't.

Occum's Razor

In short, it states that the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions is the best answer for the phenomenon. Note that Occam's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better.

Confusing Causation and Correlation (Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

Inferring that x is caused by y due to a correlation between x and y. "Teenagers in gangs listen to rap music with violent themes. Rap music inspires violence in teenagers."

Surpressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use signficant and relavent information which counts against one's own conclusion. "This Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons"

Invincible authority

Invincible authority is a fallacy that occurs when an authority's opinion on an idea is cited as if that authority's support was the only evidence necessary to uphold said idea. The fallacy is an appeal to authority and thus a conditional fallacy. P1: Source X supports Y. P2: (unstated) Source X is necessarily correct. C: Y is necessarily correct. Einstein believed in a god, so I'm going to. Such an argument is fallacious because there is no given reason why the authority's word should be accepted as final. The fallacy also faces the issue that only the authority's opinion is considered, while no opposing arguments are.

Hanlon's Razor

It States, Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Alder's Razor (Newton's Flaming Lazor Sword)

It states that whatever cannot be settled by experimentation is not worth debate.

moving the goalposts

Moving the goalposts is an logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. This is usually done by the "losing" side of an argument in a desperate bid to save face.

Unfalsifiability

Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is not way to test if it is false or not. "He lied because he is possessed by demons."

Logical Arguement

P1: If X then Y. P2: Y C: Therefore, X.

Relativist Fallacy

Rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group. "That's perhaps true for you, but it's not true for me."

Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Example: Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends. If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests.

Category mistake

A category mistake (or category error) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a speaker (knowingly or not) confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of a part. It contains the fallacy of composition (assuming the whole has the properties of the part) and the fallacy of division (assuming the part has the properties of the whole). Examples: Because the head of state represents the nation, to say something bad about him/her is to insult the nation. Birds cannot fly, because feathers can't fly, visceral organs can't fly and neither bones nor muscles can fly.

Appeal to Ignorance

A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true). "Nobody has proven to me there's a God. So I know there isn't a God."

circular logic

A conclusion is derived from a premise based on the conclusion. "Stripping privacy rights only matters to those with something to hide. You must have something to hide if you oppose stripping privacy rights."

Red herring

A fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion. "Why should the senator account for irregularities in his expenses. After all, these are senators who have done far worse things."

Straw Man

A fallacy that occurs when a speaker chooses a deliberately poor or oversimplified example in order to ridicule and refute an idea. "You say israel should stop building settlements on the West Bank in violation of the treaty, so you're saying Israel doesn't have the right to be a Nation?"

Divine Fallacy

A logical fallacy that occurs when One invoke Deitydidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. P1: Natural phenomenon X seems mysterious. P2: God works in mysterious ways. C: Therefore, God causes X! Invoking a God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance.

Fallacy Fallacy

A logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.

Pragmatic Fallacy

A pragmatic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when, because something helped someone, it will help for everyone. P1: X helped person Y. P2: (unstated, often unconsidered) Things that work for person Y work for everyone. C: X will help for everyone. "I don't know how magnetic bracelets relieve pain, I just know that they do." "Deepak Chopra was a successful doctor, yet overworked, over-caffeinated, and a smoker. After he practiced Transcendental Meditation, he lost some of these habits. Twenty years later, he's still preaching its benefits."

Apex fallacy

An apex fallacy (also semantic apex fallacy) occurs when someone evaluates a group based on the performance of best group members, not a representative sample of the group members (e.g., evaluating how well women are doing by looking only at national leaders).

Appeal to confidence

An appeal to confidence occurs when somebody's confidence in some fact is taken as proof of that fact. On the other hand, an appeal to unconfidence (also ad fidentia, against self-confidence) occurs when somebody's lack of confidence in some fact is taken as disproof of that fact. Either appeal ties confidence to authority and ties authority to truth. Appeal to confidence: P1: A says Q. P2: A says: "Trust me — I know what I'm doing!" C: Q is true! Appeal to unconfidence: P1: A says Q. P2: A's shaking in their boots! C: Q is false!

Appeal to shame

An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone's actions or arguments are described as "shameful" (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong. Someone holds a shameful opinion: P1: X asserts Y. P2: Y is shameful. C: X is shameful. Someone shameful holds an opinion: P1: X asserts Y. P2: X is shameful. C: Y is false.

Argument of Silence

An argument from silence is an fallacy that occurs when someone interprets someone's or something's silence as anything other than silence, typically claiming that the silence was in fact communicating agreement or disagreement.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy (or clustering fallacy) occurs when the same data is used both to construct and test a hypothesis. Example: A million participant raffle was drawn, and Joe was found to be the winner. Afterwards, someone points out that the odds of Joe winning are a million to one, and thus, he couldn't have won randomly and must have cheated. Of course, the chances of anyone else winning was also a million to one, and this person could've accused everyone of cheating. However, the chances of somebody winning is 100% guaranteed. In this case, Joe lucked out. Somebody had to have lucked out.

Argumentum ad lunam

The argument that, "if we can put a man on the Moon", we must also be able to X (usually something really important). P: We can put a man on the Moon. C1: (unstated) We can do anything. C2: We can end world hunger. While C1 might be stated differently (if it is stated), its ludicrosity is obvious. Just because you can do one thing, does not mean you can do another (usually) unrelated thing. There is one (mostly) non-fallacious form of the fallacy: P1: We put a man on the Moon in 1969! P2: (unstated) We can do things we've done before! C: We can put a man on the Moon today! P2 here seems much stronger — usually, people can do things in repetition. In this case, however, such an illusion falls away with a glance at NASA's budget.

Shill Gambit

The shill gambit, a type of ad-hominem and poisoning-the-well rhetorical move, occurs when one party dismisses another party's arguments by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some agency. "Person 1: There is absolutely no evidence that explosives were planted in the Twin Towers. Person 2: I knew it! Another Bush-administration shill spreading disinformation! Go spew your NWO lies somewhere else, shill!"

Appeal to Flattery

Using an irrelevant compliment to slip in an unfounded claim which is accepted along with the compliment. "Intelligent and sophisticated readers will of course recognize a fallacy like this when they read on."

Appeal to Anonymous Authority

Using evidence from an unnamed "expert" or "study" or generalized group (like "scientists") to claim something is true. "They say it takes 7 years to digest chewing gum."

Grice's Razor

When in a conversation, prefer what the speaker mean't over what the sentence they spoke literally meant.

Biased Generalization

When the sample size is sufficiently large, but the sample is not sufficiently diverse. "Our Website poll found that 90% of internet users oppose anti-privacy laws."

confimation bias

a tendency to search for information that supports our preconceptions and to ignore or distort contradictory evidence. "It's obvious - 9/11 was an american-government led conspiracy to justify the war in Iraq and Afphganistan. No plane hit the pentagon. The Twin Towers collapse was a cotrolled demolition... etc."

Ad Hominem

ad hominem is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. "anyone that says we should build a ground zero mosque is an American-hating Liberal"

post hoc ergo propter hoc

after this, therefore because of this. Claiming that because one event follows another, it was caused by it. "Since the election of the president, more people than ever are unemployed, therefore the president has damaged the economy."

Composition

assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some of a group applies to the entire group. "Recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic groups, therefore all terrorists are muslims."

Guilt by Association

calls someone's character into question by examining the character of that person's associates. "Oh you want to relax anti-terrorism laws just like the terrorists want us to do. Are you saying you support terrorism."

Hasty Generalization

drawing a general and premature conclusion of a tiny sample. "I just got cut off by a woman driver in front. All women can't drive."

Misleading Vividness

involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. "After legalising gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primarcy school student were given homosexual fairy tales and even manuals of explicit homosexual advocracy."

Counterfactual fallacy

A counterfactual fallacy occurs when someone states a fact, states that something would be true if the stated fact were not true, and provides no evidence for this position. P1: A causes B. P2: A is true. C1: Therefore, B is true. C2 (fallacious): Therefore, if-counterfactual A was false, then-counterfactual B would be false.

Didit Fallacy

A didit fallacy is an fallacy that occurs when a complex problem is handwaved away by invoking (without reason) the intervention of some powerful entity. P1: Event X occurred. P2: I'm not quite sure why Event X happened. C1: Y did it! Common examples: Goddidit Falldidit Satandidit Aliensdidit Jewsdidit Leftdidit Rightdidit Prayerdidit

Fallacy of Opposition

A fallacy of opposition occurs when someone assumes that: Those who disagree with (oppose) you must be wrong and not thinking straight, or "I would not believe something that is not true; I believe [this]; therefore, [this] must be true." P1: X asserts that Y is true. P2: I think Y is false. P3 (implicit): I only believe true things.C: Y is false.

Slippery Slope

A fallacy that assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented. "If we legalize marijuana, more people will start using crack and heroin, then we'd have to legalize those too."

regression fallacy

A regression fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an extreme value of some randomly varying event (something exceptional) is accepted as the normal value, and so when the value regresses to the mean, this change is believed to have been caused by some other event. "Approximately 3,000 people were killed in the U.S. due to terrorism in 2001. There were twelve such deaths in 2002. This shows that techniques to prevent terrorism were massively improved after 2001."

Ad Hoc

Ad hoc is a phrase (literally, "for this") that describes ideas which are created solely for a specific task and not intended to be generalizable in any way. "Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ad hoc claims. For example: ""Alice: "It is clearly said in the Bible that the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high." Bob: "A purely wooden vessel of that size could not be constructed; the largest real wooden vessels were Chinese treasure ships which required iron hoops to build their keels. Even the Wyoming which was built in 1909 and had iron braces had problems with her hull flexing and opening up and needed constant mechanical pumping to stop her hold flooding." Alice: "It's possible that God intervened and allowed the Ark to float, and since we don't know what gopher wood is, it is possible that it is a much stronger form of wood than any that comes from a modern tree.""" Here, Alice has merely offered hypothetical explanations for how the Ark could have existed, rather than offering explicit proof that it could have.

Improbable things happen

All manner of non-rationalists like to disparage their opponents or bolster their own arguments by pointing out the lack of probability of something happening. Out of all the possibilities, they say, this one is the one that occurred — how fantastically unlikely and amazingly miraculous! It is simply impossible to believe that it just happened by chance! Possibly the simplest example is a lottery. These often have incredible odds that seem impossible to beat, but indeed someone (almost) always wins.[note 1] This is because of the sheer number of people playing. Even though an individual has a low chance of success, overall it's almost certain that it will be won by somebody. Most people will refrain from submitting a ticket with six sequential numbers because of the rationalisation that such a draw is too improbable — despite the fact that all draws are equally likely.

Appeal to minority

An appeal to minority is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is asserted to be true because most people don't believe it. It is the opposite of an argumentum ad populum. P1: X is a minority view (as compared to majority view Y). P2: Minority views are more true than majority views. C: X is more true than Y.

Argumentum ad cellarium

An argumentum ad cellarium (Latin for "Argument from the cellar") states that someone eats too much celery needs to get out of their parents' basement. It is an informal logical fallacy and variety of ad hominem attack sometimes found in debates and comments on the Internet. P1: Presents argument A. P2: (unstated) P1 lives in his mom's basement. C: Therefore, A is false

Sweeping Generalization

Applying a general rule too broadly. "Those young men rioted because they lacked morally responsible fathers."

Spotlight Fallacy

Assuming an obervation from a small sample size applies to an entire group. "This large schoe manufacturer employs children in sweatshop. Therefore all shoe companies are evil child-slave owners."

Appeal to Probability

Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen. "There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe, so there must be another planet with intelligent life on it."

middle ground

Assuming because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie somewhere between them. "I rear ended your car but I don't think I should pay for the damage. You think I should pay for all the damage. A fair compromise would be to split the bill in half."

Undistributed Middle

Assuming because two things share a property, that makes them the same thing. "A theory can mean an unproven idea. Scientists use the term "Theory of Evolution", Therefore evolution is an unproven idea."

Two wrongs make a right

Assuming that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. "Sure - the conditions in this prison are cruel and dehumanizing, but these inmates are criminals!"

Perfectionist Fallacy

Assuming that the only option on the table is perfect success, then rejecting anything that will not work perfectly. "What's the point of these anti-drunk driving ad campaigns? People are still going to drink and drive no matter what."

Affirming the Consequent

Assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you're making. X results in Y Y, therefore X "Marriage often results in the birth of children, so that's the only reason that it exists."

Appeal to Incredulity

Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true. "The eye is an incredibly complex biomechanical machine with thousands of interlocking parts. How could that exist without an intelligent designer?"

Ignoring a Common Cause

Claiming one event must have caused the other when a third (unlooked for) event is probably the cause. "We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AID's.

Appeal to Authority

Claiming something is true because an (a person holding authority) 'expert' says it is. "Over 4000 prominent scientists and engineers dispute global warming."

appeal to tradition

Claiming something is true because it's (apparently) always been that way. "The Government has always existed, therefore society cannot live without one."

Appeal to Common Practice

Claiming something is true because it's commonly practiced. "this bank has some problems with corruption, but there's nothing going on here that doesn't go on in other banks."

On the spot fallacy

Considering a debater wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss anything related to it (and, at that, an expert with flawless memory). OTS is a mixture of credentialism and appeal to authority (you're wrong because you don't know absolutely everything about an issue), shifting the burden of proof (you have to prove that something is absolutely true, while the opposite side has no burden to disprove what evidence you present) and moving the goalposts (by demanding increasingly overspecific replies to a question that's already been answered, until the replier fails to be more specific, at which point the original question is considered unanswered or incorrectly answered).

Appeal to Spite

Dismissing a claim by appealing to personal bias against the claimant. "Don't you just hate how those rich Liberal Hollywood actors go on TV to promote their agendas?"

Jumping to conclusions

Drawing a quick conclusion without fairly considering relevant (and easily avaliable) evidence. "She wants birth control in her Medical Cover? What a Sl*t!"

Denying the Antecedent

If A, then B... Not A therefore not B. There isn't only one explanation for an outcome, so it's fallacious to assume the cause based on the effect. "If you get a college degree, you'll get a good job. If you don't get a college degree, then you won't get a good job."

Quod erat demonstrandum

In normal English, this means "thus it is proven", or "so there, nyer nyer nyer"; the Latin equivalent of a mic drop. It is used formally after the last line of a mathematics proof, and colloquially in discussion or argument in a similar fashion.

Appeal to Nature

Making your claim seem more true by drawing a comparison with the "good" natural world. "Of course homosexuality is unnatural. You don't see same-sex animals copulating."

Broken Window Fallacy

Negative event X has occurred but that's good because positive event Y will happen as a result.

Pascal's wager

Pascal's wager is an argument that asserts that one should believe in God, even if God's existence cannot be proved or disproved through reason. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain. Solution: The biggest irony of Pascal's Wager as far as Christian apologetics go is that even if it was otherwise completely sound it should then suddenly become a huge disincentive for convincing an unbiased party to worship YHWH specifically. By definition worshiping the Judeo-Christian God requires the worshipper to actively reject the existence of every other deity or potential deity thanks to the intolerance that is the First Commandment. In the absence of evidence for a specific deity, the theist-to-be would be better off directing some worship to one or more proposed deities that do not require exclusive worship.

Popper's Falsifiability Principle

Popper's Falsifiability Principle is an axiom suggested by philosopher Karl Popper that demands any claim be falsifiable before it be taken seriously.

Appeal to Ridicule

Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd. "Believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy."

Reductio ad aburdum

Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

Science doesn't know everything

Science doesn't know everything" (also "Science can't explain X") is an argument that asserts that, because of science's lack of knowledge about something, something else must be true. The implication is that, because science does not have an answer (or a sufficiently good answer) already, any claim can take its place, even though it has no supporting evidence.

Circumstantial Ad hominem

Stating a claim isn't creditable only because of the advocates interest in the claim. "A study into the health risks of mobile phones involved mobile phone companies, therefore the study cannot be trusted."

Appeal to Wishful Thinking

Suggesting a claim is true or false just because you strongly hope it is. "The president wouldn't lie. He's our good leader and a good American."

appeal to novelty

Supposing something is better because it is new or newer. "awesome! The Latest version of this Operating system is going to make my compute faster and better."

Appeal to Money

Supposing that, if someone is rich or something is expensive, then it affects the truth of the claim. "If it costs more, it's better."

Chewbacca defense

The Chewbacca Defense is any legal or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments. It also has, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of confusing the opponent so that they will stop arguing with you. If they are too chicken to continue the argument, the point they are trying to argue must be equally flimsy, right? Right? In war, if the opposing side pulls back and raises the white flag, you've won. Some people like to think that this strategy also works in the art of debate. If you can get the opposing side to shut up, then you're right by default. Common Characteristic of the Chewbacca defense. Accusing one's opponent of something unrelated to the subject matter at hand. Repeating a point over and over. Shouting. The logic behind this is that if one's voice is louder, they will seem more powerful, and powerful people always win. Not giving the opponent a chance to talk. Filibustering: that is, interrupting one's opponent and/or talking about nonsense purely to delay and lengthen the debate. Repeatedly bringing up semantics or nitpicking the opposition. This has the effect of either tiring out and distracting the opponent, or simply wasting time. Hitting one's opponent rapid-fire with so many bogus arguments that they cannot keep up unless they write them all down and painstakingly address them one at a time. This lets the debater claim that their opponent's failure to answer a few points as proof that they couldn't answer.

Gish Gallop Fallacy

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Hume's Razor

The cause must be proportionate to the effect it produces. "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."

Tarzwell's Razor

The essence of this razor lends itself to the idea that high emotion leads to high bias. Both science and the justice system hold that dispassion is at the core of their intentions.

The fallacy of relative privation

The fallacy of relative privation, asserts that: If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all. In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A. In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening. "If you can't complain about X just because there exists another problem, Y, that's worse than X, then the only person who has any right to complain at all is the person who objectively has it worst in every way possible. The other 7 billion people's problems are meaningless by this reasoning."

The paradox of omnipotence

The omnipotence paradox refers to the apparently paradoxical ability of an omnipotent entity to both limit its powers and remain omnipotent. Can God create a cryptography/key exchange system so secure that he himself cannot crack/bypass? If no: He does not have the ability to authenticate any of his revelations, and therefore he lacks omnipotence, and cannot authentically reveal anything to anyone. If yes: He does not have the ability to bypass encryptions therefore he lacks omnipotence and omniscience.

Begging the question

The situation that results when a writer or speaker constructs an argument on an assumption that the audience does not accept. "We know that the Bible is true because there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people. We know that there was a miracle witnessed by 500 people because the Bible says so."

Ad Hoc Rescue

Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatedly revising the argument to explain away problems. "But apart from better sanitation, medicine, roads, education, irrigation, public health, a fresh water system and public order, what have the Romans done for us?"

To Quoque

Tu quoque (Latin for 'you also') is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it.

Hitchen's Razor

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It asserts that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim and that if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. However, this razor itself begs the question of whether it is possible to assert anything with neither implicit nor explicit evidence.

division

assuming that a property that belongs to a group as a group also belongs to each of its members. "Many Conservatives wish to ban gay marriage, discredit climate change, and deny evolution, therefore all conservatives are homophobic, anti-environment creationists."

burden of proof

the obligation facing a persuasive speaker to prove that a change from current policy is necessary. "I maintain long-term solar cycles are the cause of global warming. Show me I'm wrong."