Elliott - Lesson 7 - The Peachtree argument

Hi there, Elliott; sorry if I’ve been less than regular with these classes, but I’ve been asked to undertake a PhD this year and there’s quite a lot of work to do leading up to it. I’ll be formally starting the research in early March, so I’ll do my best to deal with the three other arguments on this blog before then.

I’m starting with the Peachtree Argument because it is the easiest to deconstruct, although I could probably do a more thorough analysis of its problems if I had more time; I’ll see if I can get around to that later. This one is pretty brief, but I don’t feel the argument warrants much more attention at this stage.

The formal argument:

1- if you are given two options (one of which is correct), and you purposely select the option which is irrational illogical and has no evidence, then you are intentionally being dishonest

2- if you are intentionally being dishonest, then you are a liar

3- atheists are given two options (one of which is correct), yet they purposely select the option that is irrational illogical and has no evidence.

T- atheists are liars

This argument displays the classic fallacy of the false premise. It is based on the contention that the Elliott Argument is sound, when in fact that argument has been shown to be unsound for a variety of reasons (see lesson 6). Since that is the case, both premise 1 and 3 fail on that basis.

It is also a clear ad-hominem directed towards atheists, which in itself is a logical fallacy.

This sort of device may make you feel superior Elliott, but it simply exposes the weakness of your general position, as well as the fact that you are to some degree aware of that weakness; if you really felt sure of your standpoint you would have no need to use the disparaging language you use to describe your opponents.

Frankly, it’s a bit pathetic to have to resort to this kind of thing. I strongly suggest you ditch this one altogether; it just makes you look like a childish little boy calling all the other kids in the playground nasty names. Hardly the image you need to project if you want to be taken seriously as an apologist.