Arguments from silence

Garraghan has no condition to match the second put forward by Howell and Prevenier, that the author intended to give a full account.

You're proceeeding as if the question is whether AFS proves anything, and then you point out that most sources say it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, the arguments from silence in favor of instrumental music are equally fallacious. Christian Educational Services, The argument from silence, as applied to Galatians 6.

However, to the critical thinker, this will not fly. But the point remains that Paul had a word from the Lord pertaining to the resurrection, yet failed to use it in 1 Corinthians Finally, the second condition for Garraghan lines up with the third for Howell and Prevenier, but with different wording; where the former says that the author would certainly have offered the Arguments from silence had he or she known it, the latter say that the author had no compelling reason to omit the information.

In the effort to reteach these Corinthians that the saints will, like Jesus, indeed be resurrected from the dead, Paul ignores the various dominical sayings in which Jesus himself affirmed that there would be a future resurrection.

You are misrepresenting sources and misrepresenting the discourse. In my view, you've done a good and thorough job. Here again, the anti-Trinitarian has manufactured an argument that seems to fit the biblical data on this narrow matter of usage, but that assumes that the Bible should present the Holy Spirit in a certain way in order to warrant readers understanding that the Holy Spirit is a person.

The Missing Holy Spirit My final example of a bad argument from silence is the claim that the Holy Spirit is not a person because he is not mentioned in certain passages.

So let us see which other sources may be Judeo-Christian. I will add that anyway, because it is an issue not even mentioned yet.

Why is it a Logical Fallacy to Make an Argument from Silence?

Explanation[ edit ] Neither of two people involved in an example of this fallacy may extrapolate anything more from the silence of the silent person than it being just that, a choice of remaining silent in that particular situation. Since he was in a position to receive these kinds of dominical commands, perhaps this particular dominical command did not yet exist in his day.

Any single argument from silence, then, stands on two premises both of which must be true in order for the argument to merit the attention of the historian. Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Now you stop it. So what Duncan holds himself is that AFS are a "dialogical topos" to be evaluated based on the assignment of authority to the arguer. He seems like he is going to be hard to work for. I will address four such arguments here. Garraghan goes on to offer two conditions that an argument from silence must fulfill in order to be used in an historical argument: Dude, where are my car keys?

Your statement is totally incorrect. The same applies, for instance, if you were to ask a person who only speaks a language you don't understand a question in a language they in turn don't understand.In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural.

But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. I titled this section "Argument from Silence" because I am well aware that these are arguments from silence. Whenever an argument from silence is made, the objection invariably comes "that is just an argument from silence," perhaps accompanied by the dictum, "absence of evidence is not evidence of.

Arguments from Silence: Bad Arguments against the Personhood of the Holy Spirit #2

An argument from silence is a argument based on the absence of evidence. It is often listed as a fallacy. However, in many cases it is more of a weak argument that is somewhat strengthened when evidence would seem overwhelmingly likely.

Second, arguments from silence give preference to our current context and force Jesus and the Gospel writers to speak to our issues in the way we want them to speak, which usually is an affirmation of our views and not a rejection of them.

Thus, we stand in judgment over Jesus instead of putting ourselves under his judgment. The next sentence where he states that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies is already included in the article (the section on structure) - it was there before you typed this.

Arguments from silence typically ignore evidence contrary to the assumptions that the person making the argument brings to the subject. Arguments from silence pertaining to the personhood of the Holy Spirit are perhaps the most common types of arguments used by anti-Trinitarians on this issue.

Arguments from silence
Rated 4/5 based on 28 review