Unsupported premises
If you’re using the basic “If A, then B” syllogistic argument, then A must be accepted fact, and B following from A must be accepted fact, before you can build a syllogism on that. If the first statement in a syllogism is not supported, then nothing that follows from it matters. If there is no real evidence for the premises of an argument, then the syllogism can be internally consistent, but still not really prove anything.
Example:
Parents don’t buy Christmas presents for their kids.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Unless everyone involved in the discussion agrees that parents don’t ever buy Christmas presents, then a syllogism which assumes that claim doesn’t prove anything.
If you’re using the basic “If A, then B” syllogistic argument, then A must be accepted fact, and B following from A must be accepted fact, before you can build a syllogism on that. If the first statement in a syllogism is not supported, then nothing that follows from it matters. If there is no real evidence for the premises of an argument, then the syllogism can be internally consistent, but still not really prove anything.
Example:
Parents don’t buy Christmas presents for their kids.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Unless everyone involved in the discussion agrees that parents don’t ever buy Christmas presents, then a syllogism which assumes that claim doesn’t prove anything.
Circular reasoning
The difference between this and unsupported premises can
sometimes be subtle; basically, the meaningful distinction is that instead of
having no support for a premise, the only support offered is the very thing
that the syllogism is claiming to prove.
Example:
All Christmas presents are brought by Santa Claus.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
We can see that this is not a rational argument because the first statement of the syllogism assumes the existence of Santa Claus, which is the very thing the syllogism is supposed to be proving. To accept the first premise, someone would have to already believe that Santa Claus exists, and if they do, then there’s no point in using a syllogism to “prove” it.
Example:
All Christmas presents are brought by Santa Claus.
Kids get presents on Christmas.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
We can see that this is not a rational argument because the first statement of the syllogism assumes the existence of Santa Claus, which is the very thing the syllogism is supposed to be proving. To accept the first premise, someone would have to already believe that Santa Claus exists, and if they do, then there’s no point in using a syllogism to “prove” it.
God of the Gaps
This type of fallacious argument claims that if there’s anything we don’t currently understand, then God (or, in this case, Santa Claus) must be the explanation for that gap in knowledge.
Example:
I don’t know how all these presents got here.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Just because you can’t think of any other explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one (or even if there isn’t one now, that doesn’t mean there never will be).
This type of fallacious argument claims that if there’s anything we don’t currently understand, then God (or, in this case, Santa Claus) must be the explanation for that gap in knowledge.
Example:
I don’t know how all these presents got here.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
Just because you can’t think of any other explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t one (or even if there isn’t one now, that doesn’t mean there never will be).
Counter-Argument from
Plurality
The name for this term is my own, but it’s basically just pointing out that some theistic arguments (which claim to prove the authority of one specific religion) draw a double-standard between their religion and all the others. If the argument that your religion is true also applies to religions you believe are false, then it’s not a valid argument.
Example:
I believe in Santa Claus.
I get presents on Christmas morning.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
If anyone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus gets Christmas presents, then it must follow that believing in Santa is not the reason those people get presents; if you have another explanation for why the people who don’t believe in Santa got presents (such as their parents bringing them), then that or other naturalistic solutions could just as easily apply to your presents as well.
The name for this term is my own, but it’s basically just pointing out that some theistic arguments (which claim to prove the authority of one specific religion) draw a double-standard between their religion and all the others. If the argument that your religion is true also applies to religions you believe are false, then it’s not a valid argument.
Example:
I believe in Santa Claus.
I get presents on Christmas morning.
Therefore, Santa Claus must have brought them (and therefore exists).
If anyone who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus gets Christmas presents, then it must follow that believing in Santa is not the reason those people get presents; if you have another explanation for why the people who don’t believe in Santa got presents (such as their parents bringing them), then that or other naturalistic solutions could just as easily apply to your presents as well.
