I’m going to give you a question and a statement that will leave you pondering for a moment. Are you smarter than a five-year-old? As adults, we have knowledge from different levels of schooling, training, life experiences, and so forth; but a five-year-old child has a better grasp of how to come to a logical conclusion than almost all adults. What do I mean, why is this, and how could this happen? Before we answer that question, let’s look at how we are supposed to come up with logical conclusions.

We operate much like a computer. Data is entered into a computer through the keyboard, mouse, and scanner. The computer then takes that data calculates it and arranges it. It then communicates the logical conclusion through its monitor, printer, and internet.

In the operation of the human mind, these three factors are known as:

General grammar (get words that agree with reality or disagree with reality) which is the gathering of raw data of a related subject into a body of knowledge. When the gathering is complete, we call it a study
Logic which is the method of bringing full and intimate understanding to that body of knowledge; by eliminating all contradictions within it.
Rhetoric which is the communication of the understanding of knowledge.

Sometimes a virus is introduced into a computer. The virus takes the data being entered and scrambles it while introducing new data which does not fit correctly. Then the computer communicates false information through the monitor, printer, internet, or email.

Likewise, a virus has been planted within the human mind. You can not start with understanding, you must start with a body of knowledge. But starting with understanding is exactly what most people attempt to do. The virus within the human mind is called a fallacy. A fallacy is a failure in reasoning based on unsound data. This virus starts in our childhood and chances are, if you are a parent, you are entering the same virus into your child.

I mentioned earlier that a five-year-old has a better understanding of how to come to a logical conclusion than most adults. When a five-year-old does not understand something or their mind is looking for a logical conclusion, they ask the question, “why?” The parent often says, “Because I said so”. The parent sees that one word as a threat to their authority, while most of the time, the five-year-old child is merely looking for data to come to a logical conclusion to why they are doing something, or suppose to believe something.

This virus then grows as we put them in schools and continues to grow through our lives. Let me give you another example of a fallacy which I heard on my trip to Utah at BOSS.

We were sitting and talking about the walk we did that day and one of the guides decided he was going to explain how the different colors or different types of rocks came to be along with some little round iron balls that were being found everywhere. His explanation came from a scientist friend of his and dated millions of years ago. He was careful in his explanation so that he did not say it was absolute fact as there may and were some present who believed that the earth has only been around for 6000 years.

One of the students on the trip asked, “is that true” how it happened? Steve said, yes, according to his friend who is supposed to have done a great study and learning on the subject.

While I kept my mouth shut at the time, this is an argument of authority or an authoritative fallacy. It is the first fallacy learned as this is the same fallacy as we use on the children when we say, “because I said so”.

There is no true record of anyone being here over a million years ago. And even if someone wants to believe that people were here a million years ago, there is no documentation to that theory, nor is there any historical writings that tell what happened over time to produce the different colors or even the little iron balls. While these balls could be seen sticking out of the wall, there is no person who has ever actually seen one fall from the wall to even try an determine how it happens, or how long it takes.

The same rings true with carbon date testing. While most are convinced when science says they tested a find and it was 2 million years old; science itself says that carbon-date testing is only good up to 50,000 years as there is no carbon left after that time period. Science says that carbon is in all matter on the earth and slowly excretes from the matter in a curve over the 50,000-year range. But then, where are the records from the person who measured the carbon 50,000 years ago and the records of the measurements over that 50,000 years?

These are fallacies and people want to believe them because an authoritative figure said it was so; but in all actuality, it is all just theory and there are no facts to their conclusions. The same is in religion.

I often have people tell me I’m wrong on my teaching of the prophecies, merely because a big-time evangelist said so. They fail to research the data to come to a conclusion on their own. Our schools and our churches have turned into a parroting of so-called understanding without the gathering of data for knowledge. And we blindly accept what we are being told based on many popular fallacies.

Do we not see that it was the educated Pharisees, Sadducees, and Lawyers in the Bible that were always introducing fallacies to the people and they were always wrong? The fishermen and others gathered the data which came from the prophecies of the coming Messiah, and from Christ Himself. Yet, the people followed the educated men of authority, because it was popular, because they were educated, because they had authority, because their family did, because their people did it for generations, because they feared ridicule, because they feared death. All these are common fallacies, many of which are the exact same reason people choose to follow the Pharisees and Sadducees of today; or why they choose certain religions, churches, and beliefs.

We must understand this: Reality is everything God creates. For God’s creation, there is no interpretation needed. Though we may question how, we don’t have to be critical of what God creates.

Unreality is everything man creates. Books, events, what is being told to us, media, government, machines, geo-engineered food, anything created by man needs an interpretation. You must always be critical of what man creates because they are not perfect and fallacies have entered into it.

When we look at a creation of God and there is a contradiction, it’s only because we have not gathered enough information. This is how different beliefs and religions are formed and grow. The Bible is a historical book of the Jews and it was written over about 2000 years, under freedom, and a rule of four different empires; resulting in two languages and many different dialects and cultures. When someone reads the Bible without taking into consideration all the data of the history of what was written, then a fallacy is born within it. The concept and creation of the Book are without contradiction. The contradiction is the lack of data on our part.

What happens when someone finally gathers the data and obtains knowledge; he then comes to a logical conclusion and communicates it to others who have failed to follow the same process?

In Plato’s cave from his dialect called the Republic, he writes (paraphrased):
There are a group of men who were born and later chained in this cave. The cave is all they know; nothing from the outside. They periodically see shadows go by the entrance but they don’t know what causes the shadows or what even illuminates to make the shadows; they only know the shadows resemble the figures of those sitting near them.

One day, one of these men gets free and starts following the path; to where he does not know. As he comes around a bend, he see’s a fire; which he (nor any of the others in the cave) has never seen. As he turns around, he see’s the fire causes his shadow to be cast on the wall. He now knows that there is something in nature that causes these things.

He continues out the cave to the surface and sees trees, sun, birds, grass, and many things he’s never seen and never knew existed. So he gathers as much information as he can so that he can go back and help his friends in the cave know that there is much more than they know, much more than they have seen all their lives.

So he goes back down and tries to explain whats going on and they kill him. They are so comfortable in their reality that they don’t want to hear any of these things that are true. All they want to hear about are the shadows.

These men were reacting on emotion, not on rationality. In an argument, emotion always wins over rational. This does not mean that the emotional argument is right, but until a person can separate from the emotional fallacy, they will refuse to see the data to gain knowledge. Often then, the person trying to provide the data is attacked. We see this many times today as people attack others as a conspiracy theorist, or radical Christians, etc. They do not argue the point by data or knowledge, they attach the messenger instead.

The best type of person to have a discussion with is one who can logically receive the data given without accepting or dismissing the information until data is gathered and time is given for a logical conclusion.

To come to a logical conclusion, you must have the ability to use your mind, rather than your emotion.

Again, you’ll never win an emotional argument with rational logic

It is through emotion that we are bombarded with information today. We are not provided data, we are provided emotional rides. An appeal to emotion is the attempt to gain support through one's emotion rather than the objective substance of the argument.

Example: “I need a raise because I can’t put food on the table for my children” rather than “I deserve a raise because of the level of work I achieve for the company”

Appealing to emotion is often used in the news. If you feel your heart strings being tugged but it does not seem to relate to the data of the subject, give yourself a timeout to make sure it’s not being used as a motivating factor rather than an objective appeal.

Commercials are the best-known appeal to emotions. You need this because it’s new and improved, because you will be cool, because it get’s the girls, you will be alone if you don’t, etc.

Aristotle said the way the mind works is that it sees something. It forms that image in the brain. Then it comes out as a word. That is the process: see, conceptualize, speak. When we speak, we speak of things in reality or the things in the mind of men.

The reason we practice proper logic is so we don’t confuse fact with a man-made concept.

We must have certainty in what we believe to be true. There is a spectrum of evidence that leads us to true certainty.
The conclusion might be possible: There is some amount of evidence for the conclusion
Probable: the majority of evidence brings us to the conclusion
Certainty: All of the gathered evidence leads to the conclusion and there is no evidence against it.

If you do not have certainty, you must not communicate it as something that is true. I once asked a pastor friend, do you believe in the pre-tribulation rapture or post-tribulation rapture. He said, “I believe it will all work out in the end”. He refused to communicate a logic which was not of certainty to him.

Because the teaching of the end day prophecies is so littered with fallacies, I decided to communicate the data so that you can have a chance at coming up with a logical conclusion. First, you need to remove all fallacies within yourself.

In practicing proper logic, gather the data, remove any fallacy which is introduced, come to a logical conclusion, then communicate that conclusion.

Listed below are some popular fallacies used today. They are fallacies that we allow ourselves to reason with and they are fallacies that we allow others to use on us, and we often fall for. I’m sure you will recognize many of these as some you’ve used, fell for, or heard.

God Bless

Argument to authority: Arguments by those who carry weight without being verified (Monkey see monkey do). Do not blindly accept an argument just because they hold an authority. Gerald Massey, “They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority”
Straw man: a purposely set up person to set blame. Or set up a argument to unrelated data on a subject and refute that data rather than the subject data.
Argument against man: Attack the man rather than the argument. Often used secondary to the straw man. “Because the man is not worth, than what he says is worth nothing either”
Argument from adverse consequences: Putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dyer consequences of an unfavorable decision. You accept something, not because it is true, but because you are in fear of the consequences if you don’t.
Argument of ignorance: Absence of evidence is not crucial of truth. If you are missing a piece of evidence of truth, you can not accurately prove an argument. Only positives can be proven, negatives can not be proven. If something is not, or did not happen, how can it be proven? Therefore; the negative holds defeat in systematic logic or understanding. Argument of ignorance can be purposely achieved by purposely ruling out raw data related to the subject.
Argument of “Gods will”: Throwing in a third party so that one can not argue the point. The problems with the IRS stems to the Congress who voted them in. Complain to your Congressman and he says, “what can I do, its the IRS. I do what I can, see you next election.”
Argument of it happened after so it was cause by: The argument of superstition.
Argument of propaganda: There is an agenda to a straw man blame.
Argument of controlled opposition: LIke the two parties in America which gives a perception of choice when actually both parties are after the same thing; big government and world government. This should have became very clear with the election of Obama who rode a Democrat campaign on Republicans spending too much and going to too many wars only to have the most spending in history and more wars. Another example is a plant in a meeting or interview to which will guide question of others by asking pre planned questions: often used in presidential debates.
Argument of half truths: A false statement misleading from the appropriate raw data or knowledge. Very subtle argument as we don’t know what is being hidden. Once one receives what he believes to be factual data, there ceases to be an argument.
Argument of reason: Using the term police action for war. Or as in Libya, the use of “kinetic action” for what is an actual war.
Argument of repetition (or wearing them down): Repeat something enough times and people tend to believe what is being said. Most recent and obvious use was used during the Obama campaign of, “yes we can” and “change”. It’s also being used in terrorism to which people are in fear of terrorist enough to give up rights and freedoms; when in all actuality, more people die of bee stings every year than terrorism.

Appeal to Belief: We want to believe what those around us believe.
Appeal to Common Practice: We accept because it’s a common practice.
Appeal to Emotion: Often used by commercials. Also used as a scare tactic as in terrorism to sell citizens on giving up their rights.
Appeal to Flattery: “Kissing butt” to gain what is wanted
Appeal to Novelty: Convincing something is better because it’s new or has extra features; even though these features are not needed. Often seen on products as “new and improved”
Appeal to Popularity: Believe it’s true because it popular.
Appeal to Ridicule: People don’t like to be mocked so will avoid the unpopular belief that is true only to avoid ridicule.
Appeal to Spite: Rejects claim based on feeling of spite. Example of the fox and the sour grapes. Rejects the positive only because they were rejected.
Appeal to Tradition: Doing something because it’s been done for years. Example: “I go to that church because my parents, grand parents, and great grand parents went to the church”
Appeal to Bandwagon: A person accepts a claim because it’s likely to win.
Appeal to Begging to Question: They assume it’s true even if it can’t be proved. An example is when a parent says, “because I said so”
Appeal to Bias Sample: An example is a poll done on gun ownership yet NRA is the only people asked in a poll.
Burden of Proof: Burden of proof was put on the wrong side.
Appeal to Composition: Believes that the whole argument is true because of the parts being true. Pulling things out of context to prove a point is a good example. Also, thinking that pulling a good player from each team to form a new team will make a good team; when in fact, there are more factors than the individual players.
Appeal to Division: Believes that the parts are true because the thing as a whole is true. Just because its a good team, does not mean that each player is a good player.
Appeal to False Dilemma: Often used by salesmen. He has two things to sell you and asks you which one you want as if you don’t have any other choice; as in walking away with neither.
Gamblers Fallacy: Believes the past outcome affects the current outcome. The odds of winning are 1 in 10 and I’ve lost 10 times, I’m due to win.
Genetic Fallacy: Rejecting a claim because of the origin of the claim.
Guilt by Association: Just because the idea is associated with a negative claim or association, one rejects the claim due to that fact. Just because it’s claimed that Hitler was a Christian does not mean that Christianity is flawed.
Hasty Generalization: A common problem to which a person takes a sample of an idea and jumps to a conclusion.
Appeal to the Middle Ground: Those who tend to believe that the compromise of the two are correct and that neither are right.
Misleading Vividness: makes decision on the vivid evidence and does not take into consideration the less obvious.
Poisoning the Well: Attack the person or claims of a person before they can make the claim.
Red Herring: When someone is discussing an issue and the other person does not want to discuss that subject they will bring up another subject to lead you off of the undesired subject. Most notably done by politicians when asked a question on an issue that they do not want to answer, they bring up another issue to lead off the subject.
Relativist Fallacy: Just because it’s true for others does not mean it’s true for me. Even on a diet, a woman should eat about 1200 calories a day. That may be true for some, but I can’t eat but 500 calories a day. Or, Cheating may be wrong for you but it’s not wrong for me.
Spotlight Fallacy: Often used by media and government in that they keep a spotlight on a subject as if it would actually happen. Such as in terrorism; or a belief that all muslims are terrorist.