Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Arguments of this form are invalid, in that arguments of this form do not always give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the “then” clause of the conditional premise. One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example: If Bill Gate...

The name derives from the Greek word telos, meaning goal or purpose.  The argument contends that as we observe certain features of ourselves, the world, and the universe, we have the strong intuition that these features were designed to achieve some special purpose or goal. Many thinkers have asserted that these instances of design point to an incredibly powerful and intelligent designer – God. Scripture seems to validate this intuition in passages like Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-21. Famously, the design argument was the fifth of Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways of rationally discerning God’...

I’ve recently been reading both Mere Christianity and Miracles by C. S. Lewis and am continually reminded of not only the astute observations that this man made but the explanations and illustrations he used that really set him apart from any other author in history. Maybe their are others out there who do similar writings but I do not know of them. For example, while getting ready for a Philosophy exam, I’ve come across Lewis’ attacks on naturalism and how well formed they are. I’d love to hear a naturalist’s rebuttal to them. A careful analysis of naturalism rev...

Finding someone’s argument too tough to handle? Over your head in a matter of biblical exegesis, scientific evidence, or logical validity? Don’t despair. Now you can always respond to those smart-alecks and put them in their place. These are field-tested methods for diverting attention from the lack of substance in your argument. Never be stuck again for a snappy comeback! 1. The Amateur-Status Violation: If your opponent is not a professional scholar in the relevant field, dismiss everything he says on the subject as the opinion of an amateur. (Your opinion as an amateur, of course, is ex...