The topic of argument bears religion where both parties were trying to validate the genuineness of Christianity and Islam as the true religions. The main argument was derived from the fact that the individual A supporting Islam claimed my person in support of Christianity continued to have faith in a religion whose Holy Book- Bible- was marred with common mistakes and inconsistencies as compared to the Quran. In the conversation, a fallacious argument was put forward as described:
“ The Bible remains the Word of God because it denotes. it was written and inspired by God, its prophecies unveiling day by day with the occurrences of natural disasters and different from the Quran, it does not inspire Holy war against innocent individuals who have refused the faith restricting their free will.”
The statement or argument highlighted above shows or depicts fallacies implied to religious debate. The first statement shows circular reasoning involving stating the proposition one objectifies to prove. It accrues to using the premise you intend to argue as evidence- The Bible remains the word of God because it was written and inspired by God. The argument also shows an element of Tu Quoque fallacious reasoning by quoting or pointing out the flaws or misconceptions incited through the Quran in the form of Holy War or Jihad. The motive of stating innocent individuals in the premise can also be argued to be a fallacy of reasoning- argumentum ad misericordia. The premise exists as a suggestion that the Muslim religion does not in its entirety value the life of a human being.
The premise- Holy war against innocent individuals who have refused the faith restricting their free will – invokes or appeals to pity. The argument can also be termed an argumentum and populum because the issue of jihadism is widespread and beseeches sentimental weakness rather than quoting valid facts and reasons. The premise can also be linked to hasty generalization as a form of fallacious reasoning. It is known that not all Muslims confer with the idea of Holy War and thus, can be termed as atypical behavior in the Islamic religion.Cum hoc ergo propterhoc is a fallacious form of reasoning that connotes events occurring together or simultaneously have to be causally related-its prophecies unveiling day by day with the occurrences of natural disasters and different from the Quran. The argument proposes the natural disastersoccurringaround the globe can be linked directly to the prophecies as inscribed in the Bible.
The argument can be rewritten as:“The Bible is factual since there exists many archaeological findings and manuscripts pertaining the word of God found in Israel and other locations as mentioned in the Holy Book with the presumed ambivalence aligning only to one literal consistency- God’s plan for salvation of mankind.” The quoted statement proves valid and reliable to the argument of the genuineness of the Bible and the inconsistencies viewed in the Holy Book. It is because the Bible is the only current book with a multiplicity of existing manuscripts beating those of old classics such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. The Bible can be misconstrued or misinterpreted as one would argue. However, in justifying its relevance and accuracy despite the quoted discrepancies, it serves a single literal purpose that is announcing and celebrating God’s plan for salvation.
Therefore, the statement does not succumb to fallacious reasoning or motivated by the same. It proves the sincerity and validity of the Bible by the highlightingidentified scientific archaeological evidence that pertains andcorroborates the Holy Book,mentions, and prophecies. It extends to not assuming a hasty generalization in denouncing the discrepancies as viewed in the book but highlights its consistent objective from start to end.
In reflecting the distinction in the two statements, it can be concluded that the first comment was driven by emotion and fanatical reasoning. In arguing religion, the mind is mostly made up and allows no room for doubt, an ideology spread by the faiths. Logical thinking is therefore, limited and common sense lost in the process. The reviewed text shows argumentation was made from a point of information and not mere generalizations coupled with ignorance. The topic changed to proving the existing scientific evidence and findings to scriptures to compare superiority and which book contained sufficient proof. The argument showed my person, the staunch position or stance I previously held towards my belief to Christianity.
However, continued debate changed the perception to a more conservative view of world religions and respecting the point-of-view of individuals. The investigation and in-depth analysis of the two statements implicitly gave direction to engaging in constructive communication and debate. It also clearly showed that arguments should be backed by proof to avoid fallacies driven at only winning debates rather than deriving knowledge and constructive criticisms. The analysis also developed some sense of common sense to respecting diverse individual points-of-view since entities transcend from various religions and cultures and we might not all share the same common views.