Hi Basirah
You are denying to have made a strawman fallacy yet I see that in your previous post you told me that my premise is:
Your premise in the analogy is that god or a god like figure exists controling nature, one that you did not prove but assume to be true so that is fallicious.
while my actual premise was:
"There are three posibilities of which you failed to consider one."
So by arguing that I made a premise which I never did; you commited the straw men fallacy. Please note that is regardless of who is right and who is wrong about the ants. That is a simple matter of you misquoting me.
For more details on the straw man fallacy:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html
I would also like to point out that in your last post you made the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.
I said that one of the three possible clasifications for the event is:
a)It is an event that is scientifically accurate (that is to say it goes according to the laws of science).
To this you replied with:
That is false since science proves otherwise.
So the argument you made is:
1. Science deos not know how it is possible.
2. Therefor science shows that it is impossible.
For more detail on argument from ignorance:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html
I guess that makes it 5-0 in my favor.
Further you claimed that science knows how ants communicate. But that isn't completely true. We know some parts of it, but a lot of it is unknown. Furthermore you are again ignoring the posibility that next to the standard natural method there could be alternative supernatural methods (which is simply a repetition of your initial false dilemma fallacy and a repetition of the argument from ignorance I just explained above).
Next to that you have made a double fallacy!
When I said:
Your premise failed to consider that third option
You replied by:
No it did not, because no one in any seriousness would say, the Quran is right and all the scientists are wrong, and they will wait for that day. It is idiotic I am afraid.
Later on in your post you repeated that with:
That is not an option when dealing with science and the Quran. If you want to be taken seriously in regards to speaking ants and soloman, when ants do not communicate using sounds, but instead things like chemicals, than to leave the option open that all the scientists are wrong is in itself naive.
Now how is that a double fallacy? Well alllow me to explain:
First of all, it's a strawman's argument again. I never claimed that the third opton is:
"the Qur'an is right and scientists are wrong"
Instead what I claimed was that it could be an event not yet examined by science. (Hence neither being affirming nor violating)
Secondly, it's a fallacy of relevance. Because even if that would have been my argument (which it is not); even then failing to consider it would make your argument flawed. That is because even if an option is judged as idiotic (which by the way is a personal judgement and not "logic") even then you would have to add it to your dilemma as a valuable option and first refute it thouroughly before accepting the remaining option by elimination. In other words, my complaint was that you failed to consider it, wheter it is justifiable or not that you did.
For more information about the fallacy of relevance please look here:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/fallaciesofrelevance.html
Now since this is only one argument, I'll only count this double fallacy as a singly fallacy and set the score to 6-0 in my favor.
Such a method makes common sense for Muslims, because they have been trained to think that the Quran is faultless. Nevertheless, to use this method in a dispute is a completely diverse story. Muslims can’t anticipate that everyone will interpret Muhammad’s statements in the most sympathetic light conceivable when his dependability as a prophet is what is being investigated. The Muslim argument is intended to establish that Muhammad was a true prophet, but in order to prove their point, Muslims have to assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he consequently, couldn’t have made any errors. This makes the Muslim process of scriptural explanation a standard illustration of circular reasoning.
I am not expecting you to accept that the the Qur'an is perfect out of faith. that would indeed be circular as you pointed out. Instead I expect you to accept it is perfect due to a lack of flaws. So far you have shown no flaws. The story of the ants speaking is not a flaw. in fact if you claim it to be, then you are the one guilty of circular reasoning. You pointed out yourself that:
the Qurans myth/tale of soloman hearing ants could not have occured without proving the existance of a god.
That is a double-cutting sword. It is true that I cannot prove that the myth is true before first proving the existance of God, but it also means you cannot disprove it happened without first disproving God! that is exactly why we need that third option in your initial dilemma!
Use your mind, the Quran says that ants spoke and understood soloman. Stop being an apologetic and actually look at the ridiculous claim which disputes all scientific doscovery in regards to ants communication. Then judge for yourself.
...
In regards to this argument, you will have a very difficult time proving that any human can "hear" an ant.
Maybe you are the one who should open your mind. I think the problem is you are being hung up on the word speaking. Somehow you are convinced that such a term refers to making vocal resonanties picked up by the middle ear. Although that description is accurate, it is incomplete, there are other posibilities. For example the ants might have spoken to solomon telephatacally. This is just an example, but it clearly refutes your arguments that believing in this communication goes against science and is ridiculous. No, I'm sorry, it is not ridiculous at all, you are being close-minded.
The burden of proof is on you. Science has already proven that the Qurans myth/tale of soloman hearing ants could not have occured without proving the existance of a god.
I already refuted this by showing it's a double cutting sword. If you want to use the talking ants as an example of a flaw of the Qur'an you will first have to disprove the existance of God.
We know how ants communicate.
Like I said, we only know it partially
Hoping that some day science will be proven wrong is insane.
Like I said, science doesn't rule out the posibility, so that is a argument from ignorance fallacy.
Your not using any critical thinking
I beg to diffrence the score is 6-0 in my favor in terms of using fallacys.
and your letting your mind be controlled by a scripture and you let it define science and judge all of man discovery based on that book. I let myself go of such a thought process. Belive what you wish if it leads you to peace, but please do not tell me that the Quran is some scientific book and everything in it is from god, nor impose it on my family in places like Pakistan.
Actually that is not true either. See you are talking to someone who reverted to Islam at a later age. I first read the Qur'an, analysed it critically, and then made my conclusions from it and then reverted to Islam. So any claims that my opinion about it is biased by my faith is ungrounded since I formed my opinion about it before acquiring my new faith. Furthermore I will not ceise to tell people that the Qur'an is scientificly accurate simply because you disagree with it. Maybe if you first prove to me it has scientific innacuracies, then I might comply with your request.
