Thank you. But, I don't know, maybe that's not what it says. I don't want to be too bold. And if I have this really poor manner of trying to exhort and encourage and teach, of under confidence or not speaking out loud, that lack of boldness, that lack of confidence can be bad rhetoric. It's not very convincing. But if I stand up with conviction and courage and tell you guys how important it is that we show respect towards those around us, then that's good rhetoric. So there's a certain level of confidence that is good. However, there's a certain kind of bravado or overconfidence that is not good, that sometimes might help people to win over others to their side, but it's deceptive. It's put on. It's manipulative. And so rhetoric, it is bad when it is used in insincerity, when it is used to manipulate, when it is used for unloving purposes. But rhetoric is just the art of public speaking, and so it can be done very good. So just like logic can be fallacious or it can be sound, so rhetoric can also be bad or it can be good. just self-evident. Everyone should be able to understand that God created the world. I mean the whole creation is just shouting out, God made me, and anyone who doesn't listen to that has deliberately shut their ears. Now, an illusionist might figure that out and say, well that's a question begging at effect. You haven't really made an argument, you've just said it's obvious, but it's not obvious to me. So, knowing what's the proper place for confidence and how to exude confidence is one of those things that is a challenge when you're trying to be fair to others and asking others to be fair to yourself. When I was in seminary I had a preaching class and they talked about this type of issue that And in his notes he had written next to one of his points, weak point, pound, pulpit, cube. So he didn't have good argumentation, he didn't have good logic for his points, so he thought he would just cover that up with bravado. they'll try to cover up a weak argument with just bravado, with just this show of empty confidence. If I project how confident I am in this point, maybe that will persuade people, even though I don't really have a good argument. So, preachers do this, and atheists do it, and everybody does it, and we have to be careful that we are not just trying to win the argument, not just trying to persuade people, Creation is still obviously wrong. So this is a fallacy, and if it was going to be written better, it would be something along the lines of, creation is obviously wrong for the following reasons. You have to give reasons for why it's obviously wrong. Saying, I don't even need to argue my position, how am I supposed to interact with that? And that's the point of the discussion, the debate, that you make points that I can interact with, and I make points that you can interact with. If I say I don't even need to argue, it's like, well, I can't interact with that. Nowhere to go with that. So that's a question-begging epithet. Now, question-begging epithets, this This disparaging or abusive word, it doesn't have to be overt. It doesn't have to be direct. It can be indirect. It can be kind of a roundabout disparagement or abusive word. It can be implied. It doesn't have to be outright stated. So the implication of number four is that you can't see things that are obvious. You're so dumb that you can't even see things that are obvious. So even though he doesn't say that in the statement, It is the foundational presupposition of his statement, and so it's an implication of what he's saying. So, be aware of it. It doesn't have to be an overt disparaging or abusive word. It can be an implied one. Number five, vulgar language. I appreciate that he didn't actually put the vulgar language in there, because that's not things that we need to repeat. Anytime someone is going to start throwing out vulgar language, this is a sign of someone who does not have a good argument, but instead just wants to emote. Vulgar language is a highly emotional language. It is used to express emotion in vulgar terms. Now, there's nothing wrong with emotion, and if you can learn how to express your emotions in ways that are descriptive and artful and excellent, We want to be able to express emotions in those ways. But if someone is always using the F word to describe their emotions all the time, it's like, go get a dictionary. Learn some words. Learn how to communicate frustration besides this one word that you use over and over again. It's just a sign of someone who's not very articulate. Also, it's a sign of someone who doesn't respect things that are respectable. When people use God's name in vain, they're doing an ultimate example of that. or taking something that is worthy of greatest honor and respect and using it in a disrespectful way. And same thing with the F word, taking something that is very holy, something that is sacred that God has created, and speaking about it with very vulgar language. And so that's why we as Christians don't use vulgar language, is because we want to hold in honor the things that are held in honor, and we want to respect others and be setting our minds on things that are excellent and not on things that are vulgar. All right, so this is a fallacy. What would be the right way of saying it? Well, it's hard to know because we don't know what he's actually saying. But use polite language in a rational argument. And let's go on to number six. The scientific position is evolution. Creation is just religious nonsense. So, when he says creation is just religious nonsense, this is just disparaging the position of creation. It's not giving an argument that you can actually interact with. And so, you have to follow up with someone like this and say, well, what do you mean by religious nonsense? Why do you think it's religious nonsense? And try to get something that you can actually interact with. But a lot of people, they don't want to interact with you, and that's why you don't want to argue with a fool. If someone demonstrates that they have no interest in understanding, but only in expressing their own opinion, often in a vulgar or disparaging manner, that's not the person who is ready to have a genuine conversation on the issue. And if the person is not ready to have the genuine conversation on the issue, then don't have that conversation. Don't force a conversation with somebody who's just going to rage and laugh. Nothing good comes out of that. That's why the Bible says that you don't cast your pearls before slime, or they will turn and trample on the pearls and attack you. then you have this really valuable truth that you want to share with people. But if someone is not interested in that truth, someone hates that truth and discourages that truth and is not going to listen but is just going to verbally attack you, let them go. Don't argue with them. What's the saying that my uncle, your uncle, my brother-in-law always likes to say? Never argue with a fool. They bring you down to their level and they win by experience. So don't let them bring you down to their level, and then they're better at arguing like a fool. Instead, just say, well, you know, I can see you're not ready to talk about this, and if you ever want to, I'm here, and I'd love to talk about this important issue with you. So treat them respectfully, treat them politely, don't insult them, but do tell them the truth. It's obvious you don't really want to know what I think about this, but if you ever do want to know what I think about this, I'd be happy to talk about it with you. creation is just religious nonsense. So if somebody says something like this to you, you know, there's so many ways you could respond. You could say, well, your contempt is not going to persuade me, but if you'd like to make an argument as to why religion is nonsense, I'm open to listening to it. And so, let people know they can't intimidate you, let people know that their insults are not going to affect you, that you're confidence and trust in God is not so shaky and flimsy that some person throwing an insult at you is going to make you say, oh no, I guess I have to give up my faith in God because people don't like it. But instead they say, well, you know, your content is not going to persuade me, but I'm open to an argument if you'd like to give an argument. Now, if you were going to restate number six into something better, you'd say creation is not scientific because of the following reasons. Giving reasons, that's something you can interact with in arguments. Name calling is not something you can interact with. You can say creation is nonsense because it relies on faith instead of the scientific method. This is a quote from Richard Dawkins, and if you don't know who Richard Dawkins is, he's an old school atheist, still alive, and recently had a discussion, a debate with Jordan Peterson on the existence of God, kind of an interesting discussion between two great intellects, one who's very strong on his atheism, and one who is okay in his understanding of Christianity. I don't know if Jordan Peterson is quite there yet, but anyway. in his British ways, a scholar, and he's a professor at a university in England, so he's got that wonderful accent. God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Somehow things just sound more intelligent when you put on that accent. So Richard Dawkins has a very subtle and polite insult here, because the British But when he calls God the most unpleasant character in all of fiction, well, this is begging the question, because he's assuming that we're talking about a fictional character, that God is a fictional character. God is not a fictional character. The book of the Bible is a book of history, not a book of fiction. So he's begging the question, and then it's an insult also, because he's calling God Now, that's a very British way of giving a very powerful insult. Most unpleasant character. So it's actually a clever double epithet. He's calling him fictional, and he's calling him most unpleasant. And so cleverness, nothing wrong with cleverness. We should be clever. But cleverness is not an argument. So just because somebody says something in a clever way, what's right, people can be clever in what's wrong, and just being clever is no proof that you are reasoning correctly, so keep that in mind. If you were going to state this better, in a non-biased way, then you would say, God, as the Bible portrays Him, is repugnant to me. I find the portrayal of God in Scripture to be unbustling. That is a statement of your own personal opinion, you know, to me. and it's not assuming that he's fictional, so that would be a much less biased way, an unbiased way, I would say, of stating that conviction. God, as he's portrayed in the Bible, is unpleasant to me. Benjamin Franklin, he gave wisdom, he wrote a lot of wisdom, even though he wasn't a Christian, and he said his relationships with people really improved When he stopped stating his opinion as a matter of fact, but instead said, to me. It looks this way or appears this way to me. And then people would be open to discussing and talking about issues with him. But when he just came up and said, this is the way it is, boom. Then it kind of shut down the conversation, didn't include a lot of relationships. And so you might want to think about what Benjamin Franklin learned and try to incorporate that into your character and practice at a young age to say, well, instead of going to your brother and saying, you're a fat slob. Say, sometimes it seems to me like you don't take care of yourself the way that you should. And where you state it to me, and this is how I'm looking at it, instead of just stating it as a matter of fact, then you're going to have a better conversation about the issue. Number eight, we will show that creation is not consistent with the scientific data in the field of genetics. Okay, this is not begging the question, this is stating a proposition, and it is going to give the reason. So this is not a fallacy, this is the beginning of an argument that is worth engaging in, okay? Not a fallacy, number eight. Number nine, why do I not believe in creation? Because I'm intelligent. Alright, so this is another subtle, abusive, disparaging, insulting statement because the person is subtly telling you that you're not intelligent because you believe in creation. So you go to someone and you're like, did you know that God created the world and everything in it? And he says, well, I don't believe in creation because I'm intelligent. Well, what's he implying? He's saying, well, you're not intelligent because you believe in it. So every intelligent person knows that God didn't create the world. So even though he's not directly insulting, he is insulting in an indirect manner. So this is an epithet, and it does beg the question. It doesn't make an argument. So better would be, I don't believe in creation for the following reasons. And then you list your reasons, and then you can have a discussion about those reasons. You see, question-begging epithets don't lead to good discussion. Making arguments leads to good discussion. And a question begging F that does not treat others with dignity and respect, but making an argument does treat others with dignity and respect. I actually saw this. Ray Comfort is one of my favorite evangelists. And he was out doing his evangelism thing, and he was talking with a guy about God and creator, and the guy gave this argument over and over again. And Ray was asking, well, why don't you believe that God exists? And he's like, well, because I'm intelligent. And he just said that over and over again. He didn't sound very intelligent when he kept giving that argument, and he didn't have any reasons that he could give, even though Ray Comfort was very patient, and asking him, and all he could come And then the long answer, I don't know why this one's a long answer, the other ones are short answers, they seem about the same to me. But anyway, I used to have blind faith just like you, but then I evolved. So another indirect insult, and a clever one. I like the word play on evolution and evolved. But he assumes that faith is blind faith, so that's an insult against a person. He's assuming that my faith has no good reasons and that it's blind. Now, maybe his faith was blind faith. Maybe he'd never looked at the reasons for why God exists and why the Bible is true, and he just believed it because his parents told him or his church told him. Well, that kind of blind faith is a faith that is pretty unstable. But the Bible does give us reasons for believing the Bible, and so my faith is not blind faith. And that's something you could do in a situation like this. You could tell the person, well, maybe you did have blind faith, Maybe now you have blind unbelief, and maybe we need to keep on exploring, what are the reasons? Are there good reasons for understanding that God exists, and that the Bible is God's Word? And I'd love to share those reasons with you. If someone hasn't shared those reasons with you before, I'm sorry. If your church failed you in that regard. But there really are good reasons, and I want to help. So, I used to have blind faith just like you. So that's an insult. He's assuming, begging the question that you have blind faith. But then I evolved a clever use of the word evolution there to talk about how he's progressed in his understanding, and we are still in less progressed, primitive thinking. Cleverness is not an argument. Nothing wrong with cleverness. It's just not an argument. And an insult is not an argument. There is something wrong with that. So if you want to fix this, you'd say, I used to have blind faith, but I no longer believe in Christianity for the following reasons. And there's nothing wrong with saying, I used to have blind faith. OK, you used to have blind faith. I believe you. And now I don't believe for the following reasons. Well, that's true. You don't believe for the following reasons. So I can interact with that. Let's talk about those reasons. Let's examine them. Let's find out whether or not Ray Comfort, he gets a lot of question-begging epithets thrown his way online. The internet atheists love to make fun of Ray Comfort because he's one of the most well-known guys on the internet who is sharing the gospel with atheists and making videos to lead atheists to Christ. And they don't think very highly of him because Ray Comfort is He's not a professor at a university or anything like that. He just comes across as your common everyday guy. And he seems to be highly intelligent, but he doesn't always flaunt it. He comes across very simple. So they call him the banana man. And the internet atheist years ago, we're making fun of him because he had this video that he put out where he showed that a banana is evidence of creation because of how well designed the banana is. It comes with its own peel that you can throw away, it's biodegradable, it's got a nice handle that fits in your hand so nicely. So he gave all these reasons why the banana was designed by a god, and he was doing it kind of tongue-in-cheek, kind of just for fun. And so the atheists picked up on that, and they're like, look at this idiot. He thinks that the shape of a banana proves that there's a god, and the banana has appeal. So they called him the Banana Man. And so he kind of didn't respond in kind. He didn't get angry and insult them back. But instead, he loved them. And there was one internet atheist in particular who really went after him, and he sent her a birthday card, because he was watching her video and she mentioned her birthday was coming up. And he sent her a gift card in there and told her, you know, happy birthday, and if you ever like to talk, I'd love to meet with you. And so she had him on her show and found out that he was a really nice guy and really respectful. And I don't know if she ever became a Christian, but you can really disarm people. And that's what we want to do. So when you get the question begging epithet coming your way, just show kindness in return to the angry atheist and recognize that you are here to love and serve those who need salvation and not to get personally offended and to try to have The complex question, the loaded question. I don't have nearly as much notes on this chapter, so we should be able to go a lot quicker here. Oh, yeah. Write the number correct out of 10 at the top of your paper and hand them towards the center. Give that to Jamie also. Thanks, Jamie. So. The complex question also tries to smuggle in an unproved claim. So we're dealing with informal fallacies of presumption. Begging the question is a fallacy of presumption. You're assuming a conclusion instead of giving an argument for it. So the complex question also does that. It's a fallacy of presumption. It tries to bring in an unproved claim by having one question that's predicated on an assertion that is not yet proven. For example, number one, if creation is true, then why does all the evidence point to evolution? So you'll notice a lot of these complex questions are why questions. Number two is a why question, number three is a why question. So it's assuming that evolution is true and that creation is false. And then it's asking, well, if that assumption is true, then why this or why that? And we can't answer the question because we're not with them on the assumption. You can't assume. That's begging the question. And you're hiding the begging of the question by asking a question that is making that assumption. So it's, again, an error of presumption, a logical error of presumption. Now, it's very easy to do this error, and so we have to watch ourselves as well, because we are going to assume a number of things when we ask people questions that they are not going to necessarily agree with. The Bible teaches that all are sinners, and that the penalty for sin is death. And so if you go to someone and say, have you repented of your sins? Well, that is assuming that they think they have sins that they need to repent of. And they may not have any concept of sin that I need to repent of because of their beliefs. And so, the complex question is one where we have to stop and think, does the person I'm talking to agree with the assumption that is in my question? And if not, Well then you have to first talk about your assumption that is in your question and demonstrate and convince them of that before you can ask them that question. So, if creation is true, why does all the evidence point to evolution? Now notice the instructions. All of the following are examples of the complex question. So if you went through and said, this is a complex question, this is not a complex question, then you should have read the instructions. because they're all complex questions. Your assignment is not to decide whether or not they're a complex question, but to divide it into two so that you eliminate the fallacy. If creation is true, why does all the evidence point to evolution? Easy way to do this is you chop off the last part of the question after why. Does all the evidence point to evolution? Does all the evidence point to evolution? That's the first question. The second question is, if so, then how can creation be true? And there are certain creationists who think that God used evolution in order to create. And so for them, this would be a very sensible question. Me, I don't think that God used evolution to create. And so I don't think that all the evidence points to evolution. But some Christians do think the evidence points to evolution. And they think God is the one who superintended the evolution process. Anyway, that's a different story. Number two, if the world is young, then why does it look so old? You have to answer that question first, and then you can say, The starlight problem, it looks like the universe is old because distant stars would take millions of years for light to get here, so how can the universe only be thousands of years old if it takes millions of years for the light to travel here? And there's good answers for those questions. Yeah? I wrote mine in the opposite way. I wrote, is the world young? And then, if so, why is it so old? Yeah, that's fine. OK. Yeah. Number four. Are you aware of the fact that evolution demonstrated in a laboratory. So he's assuming that evolution has been demonstrated in a laboratory. He's asking, are you aware of that fact? But that's a vacant question. And so you have to break this up into two questions and back the person up and say, well, has evolution been demonstrated in a laboratory? And whether you're aware of it or not is not important. But what is important is, can they show you? that has been demonstrated in the laboratory in a way that you can actually interact with. And most likely, what has been demonstrated in the laboratory is change within a kind. There's a fruit fly that has certain traits that can be selected over a period of time, and natural selection is done in the laboratory. Well, that's not proof of evolution between kinds of animals. That's proof of evolution within a kind, and that's not something that is at the issue. Watch out for the complex question. And look out for the fallacy of evolution being used in two different ways in the same context. The change with any kind versus the change between kinds. And what's that fallacy called? Where you change the meaning of a word in your argument? You know? Equivocation? Yes, equivocation. So this would also be in the equivocation chapter as well as the loaded question or the complex Number five, did life arise from random chemicals and diversify into all the species on earth today? If so, how? All you have to do is take off the how, and the real question here is did life arise? And then once that is proven, you can get to the second part of the question. Number six, are scientists able to probe the distant past and learn what life was like millions of years ago? The question assumes that they are able, but that is actually the question that needs to be decided. Why are creationists against science? So the question is, are creationists against science? If so, why? about why they're against it, because I don't believe that they are against it. See, a complex question. Number seven, when are you going to stop believing nonsense and accept science? Do I believe nonsense and reject science? If so, I'll stop. So the first part of the question is, do you believe nonsense and reject science? Number eight, are creationists so ignorant of the facts? If so, why? Number nine, did birds evolve their wings? Part two of the question, if so, why? Number 10, is evolution so important to our understanding of biology? If so, why? Why? What is the mechanism? When? Are you aware how? All those questions are good questions, but you can't assume the first part of the question and when that is the issue at stake. Why have you stopped making flashcards for the questions at the end of the chapter? Have we stopped making flashcards? Raise your hand if you've stopped making flashcards for the key terms of the chapters. Why? Why? Probably because there's less, so it's easier just to use the book. Yeah, also I haven't been mentioning it in the emails, so that's one thing I remembered this week. I was like, oh, I forgot to tell them to keep on making flashcards. For those of you who are still making flashcards, why are you doing it? Because I was told to. A good student does quit doing something just because he hasn't been reminded lately. But a good student keeps on doing what the assignment was that was set up at the beginning of the semester. So I apologize for forgetting, but I'm proud of those who kept on doing it. All right, let's keep going because we've got only 15 minutes left. So write the correct number out of 10 there on top of your page. Make sure your name is on it. So I need someone else to collect those. Lori, can you collect those? You may have left a clipboard on the back if you want to record those grades for me. All right, so pull out worksheet number 25, the bifurcation fallacy. This is also known as the either-or fallacy or a false dilemma, false dilemma. A dilemma is Bi means two. I don't know what lemma means. But the false dilemma is when you're falsely giving just two options. Either this or that. It's a bifurcation. Bi also means two. To bifurcate means to cut something in two. And so the bifurcation fallacy gives just two options and assumes that those options are mutually exclusive. Everybody say mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive. Yeah, be on guard for this. There's going to be a lot of times where people will trick you this way. And they might not be trying to trick you. They might think that this is a genuine dilemma. They might think that there really is a mutual exclusivity between the ideas. And your job, then, is to show them that there is a third option, or that these two things are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be either or. It can be both and. So, the fallacy, you look for the third alternative, or you look for how they are not mutually exclusive. Like if you go through a red light and someone says, well the light was either red or green, you say, well I looked at a lot of stoplights and there's also the option of it being yellow. And so it was a yellow light when I was going through it, it wasn't green, it wasn't red. So be aware that sometimes there are more than two options. There could be 27 options, and somebody could just know of two. And so this is a fallacy. I like what it says there in the chapter review. It's like being given a multiple-choice test where the right answer is not listed. So that would be tricky, that there's a multiple-choice test. You're supposed to pick A, B, C, or D, but none of those are right. So not only can you have a bifurcation fallacy, you can have a trifurcation fallacy or a quadrification fallacy. Those aren't real words. Where you're dividing, here's your three options or here's your four options. But there's actually more options than that. Your favorite candy bar is either Twix, Reese's, or Snickers. Which one is it? And it's like, well, there are other candy bars. So it doesn't have to just be a bifurcation. Anytime someone is giving you a certain number of options, about the world is wrong. Yes, this is bifurcation. And what is the possible third alternative is evolution is false, but some things we know are true. Some things you know are true. When they say everything we know, they're probably talking about evolutionary scientists. Yeah? No, I'll give half credit for that. Okay, so I put down that it wasn't because from their point of view, everything they know about the world really would be wrong if evolution wasn't true for them. Well, they still know 2 plus 2 is 4. You know, they still know that... Oh, yes, you're right. Now I understand. Yeah, so there's some things that they know that are true. Yeah, evolution is false, but some things, you know, are true. That's the correct answer. So if you missed half of it, And half of it is A and half of it is B. Number two. Either you have reasons for what you believe or you simply take it on faith. Here is a bifurcation between reason and faith. That they think that there is a mutual exclusivity between reason and faith. And this is a common misunderstanding. A lot of people think that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. But they are not. Think about this. I have faith in my family doctor that when I go and see him and get my blood test, and he comes back to me and tells me my blood sugar is too high, I believe him. I don't know my blood sugar is too high. He's the one who knows that my blood sugar is too high, and I take his word for it, and I have good reasons for taking his word for it. That's the same way with the Bible. We have good reasons for taking God's word for things. And there's reasonable faith, and there's unreasonable faith. If I go to Joe Schmoe and he says, well, according to the way that the stars are aligned today, you've got high blood pressure. Well, the stars being aligned in a certain way has nothing to do with my blood pressure. I'm not going to believe you. There's no reason for me to believe you. You're a quack. And so faith in a bad doctor, a quack, who's practicing astrology instead of medicine, That is bad faith. That's unreasonable faith. And faith should be based upon good reasons. So this bifurcation between faith and reasons is a fallacy. It's saying these are mutually exclusive when they're not. There is a reasonable faith. There is an unreasonable faith. So it's hard to know what the right way of saying this is. You could say, for what you believe, or you simply take it on faith in God's Word. Empiricism and faith in God's Word are different ways of knowing things, and there's a reason why having faith in God's Word is reasonable, and empirical reasons are different from that. Empirical reasons are scientific reasons, observational reasons, the number of planets in our solar system. I have empirical reasons for believing, except they took Pluto off the list for whatever reason. So I can still argue about how many planets there are in our solar system. But there's empirical reasons for them. I don't take the Bible's word on how many planets there are because the Bible doesn't say so. And we can just look with our telescopes figure it out. Or with your eyes, you can see a lot of the planets with your eyes. So, the better way would say you have empirical reasons versus faith, or you could have something written like, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, or something along those lines. But whatever you have for number two is fine, as long as you have, yes, this is a fallacy of bifurcation. Number three, I can never be a creationist because I'm rational. This sounds a lot like the epithet, right? So once again, you can have multiple fallacies, a bifurcation fallacy and an epithet going together, because he's implying that you're irrational if you are a creationist. And he's saying that creationism, believing in creation, and rationality are mutually exclusive, but they're not. And so the third option is, and I believe in creation. So anything along those lines is correct. Number four. Either you believe in God or you are an atheist. Now this is not a bifurcation fallacy. This is actually an example of the law of the excluded middle. You guys remember the law of the excluded middle? What is the law of the excluded middle? Aiden, what's the law of the excluded middle? That there is no middle option. It's like the true version of this fallacy, but there actually is only this. Correct. It's the true version of this fallacy, when there are just two options. And the law of the excluded middle says there's always just two options. A proposition is either true or false. And so if you can identify that it's A or not A, That is the law of the excluded middle. So belief in God and being an atheist are the negation of one another. Being an atheist is not believing in God. So this is either A or not A, or P or not P. So these are mutually exclusive, the law of the excluded middle here. So not the bifurcation fallacy on number four. Now, this is where he's got the footnote on page 123. He says, in footnote number 2 on page 123, see Jason Lyle, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, referring to his book, but he summarizes in the video that I sent out to you. And so there's another reference to The Ultimate Proof of Creation there in the text. So it's very timely that I gave that assignment to you. I had not read ahead, but I knew where he was going with that. All right, number five turned over, number five. Do you believe the universe is governed by natural laws or do you believe it is upheld by the hand of God? Now this is a really clever bifurcation fallacy because it seems natural to most people that these would be mutually exclusive. Most people that are growing up in our naturalistic, philosophical naturalistic world are going to assume that natural laws and the hand of God are mutually exclusive, but they're not. So the third option is God holds the universe through natural laws. Question? For number four? Yeah. I have read it more of like, do you believe in God as in the one true God, not necessarily, or you're an atheist? And so then I wrote, yes, you could believe in different gods or religions, meaning like, yeah. Yeah, if you read it that way, I'll accept that as an answer. But when it's capital G, God, it's usually referring to the Christian God in our context, for future reference. Catch the context. Number five. Oh yeah, we already did that one. So it's a fallacy. God holds the universe through natural law. God is in control of natural law. Number six. The grass is wet, so it's either raining outside or someone left the sprinklers on. Now he said this is not a fallacy. I'm okay with that. But the study guide said that it is a bifurcation fallacy because there are other possibilities for how the grass could be wet besides the sprinklers or rain. What's one of the main ways that grass can be wet without rain or sprinklers? Water balloon fight. Water balloon fight. That's not necessarily the one that would come to my mind first as the most common, but it is a good one. Yeah? Do in the morning. Yeah, exactly. Do in the morning. Another one? It snowed. It snowed and melted. Yeah, could be that. Very good. Yeah, very good. The do, the snow melt, and even the water balloon fight, which usually leaves some residue of water balloons that would be a good clue for that one. So it is a bifurcation fallacy, but if you put no and you couldn't think of any other way so the grass could be wet, that's fine. Number seven. Either you are with me or you are not. Now, this is not a fallacy because this is also the law of the excluded middle. You are with me or you are not with me is the negation of the same proposition. And the negation of a proposition is the law of the excluded middle, so this is not a fallacy. Number eight. I listen to the Holy Spirit to tell me what to do, not the text of the Bible. This one is also a common fallacy, not among evolutionists, but among Christians. Christians often make this mistake, that I listen to the Holy Spirit, not the text of the Bible, because the Holy Spirit speaks through the Bible. That's his primary way of speaking to us, so these are not mutually exclusive. In fact, not only are they not mutually exclusive, but they are almost co-determinant. The Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Bible. You can read about that in 2 Peter 1.21 or 2 Timothy 3.16. One of my favorite verses there, 2 Timothy 3.16. I'll jot that down as a reference for number 8, 2 Timothy 3.16, 2 Peter 1.21. put that this is true that you know like you this is not a fallacy then I thought well what if he's neutral you know he's not like on either side I don't quite follow you So what was your answer? I put that, well... What was your answer? Fallacy or not? I first put that it wasn't a fallacy, and then I changed it to that way, it was a fallacy, because I thought, well, what if he's neutral and he's not money himself? Well, it is a fallacy, so you get credit for that. Who said he who's not at all himself? No, I'm talking about the number 7. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Either you are with me or you are not. No, I will not accept any other answer. That is not a fallacy. Good question. Number nine. Is God in control of everything that happens, or do we have freedom of choice? Is God in control of everything that happens, or do we have freedom of choice? This is another bifurcation fallacy that's common among Christians. Christians tend to think that these are mutually exclusive, but they are not. God is in control of everything, including our free choices. Now, if that's not what you believe theologically, then you can, you know, take this as an opportunity to think and come up with arguments and examine the scripture, but Jason Lyle and I agree that God is in control of our free choices, and I think that is what the Bible teaches. Now, when it comes to some of these, it doesn't just have to do with your belief. You don't have to believe that God is in control of everything, including our free choices, in order to recognize this as a fallacy. Maybe God is in control of everything and we don't have free choices. Maybe you're a determinist and you don't believe in free choices. But the question here is not, do you agree with the statement? The question is, is it a fallacy? And it is a fallacy because you can't assume that these things are mutually exclusive. You might think they're mutually exclusive, but they are not the opposite of each other. Freedom of choice and God-given control are not P and not P, or A and not A. He had Proverbs 21 verse 1 in the study guide as an important verse for understanding how God is in control even of the free choices that people make. You can write down Proverbs 21 verse 1 if you wanted to look into that. A lot of good books written on the subject of God's sovereignty and human responsibility or human choice. That's a pretty deep topic, so I just want to make it clear. You don't have to agree with the statement in order to recognize that it is a bifurcation, that it is something that is not the law of the exclusive middle. These are not the same propositions, not a negation of the same propositions. A little controversial here. Number 10. Those who say they disbelieve Darwinian evolution are either misinformed or dishonest. Those who say they don't believe in Darwinian evolution are either misinformed or dishonest. This is a bifurcation. There are other reasons why someone might say that they don't believe in Darwinian evolution, but let's take off the disbelief and let's turn it around on ourselves again. Those who say they believe Darwinian evolution are either misinformed or dishonest. Now, that might be a statement that I believe. I might believe that those who believe in Darwinian evolution are misinformed. That's the only reason why somebody would believe in Darwinian evolution. But it's still a bifurcation someone would believe in Darwinian evolution. It doesn't mean that is the only reason, that these are the only two options. Now, what other options are there for why someone might believe or not believe in something? Yeah? They're both disinformed and dishonest. Yeah, it could be both. It doesn't have to be in either or. Good. What else? Can you think of any other reasons why someone might not believe something besides being misinformed? Maybe they just have other reasons. Maybe they just don't want it. Maybe they just don't like it. I've got a great article I'll probably give you next week on why people are illogical. And one of the reasons why people are illogical is they don't like what is logical. And therefore, they are not willing to see it or understand it. Yeah? I put being rational as my third way. Is that correct or not? Yeah, yeah, I think that's fine. I'll accept that. All right, so put the correct number out of 10 and hand those in so we can jot those down. I will hand out the assignments for the following week while you're doing that.