Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You seem to be a bit confused. Reductio ad absurdum is a rhetorical device that is not necessarily fallacious. It can be used to point out a flaw in someone's reasoning by showing that the reasoning leads to absurd consequences. Example:

John: I am against abortion, because life is sacred.
Richard: but bacteria are also life, so you are again ...[text shortened]... it raining on the next. Therefore it is an informal fallacy (of the hasty generalization kind).

yes you are correct because i am confusing false analogy with a reduction to absurdity and i can see that they are not synonymous and I thank you for it. This here is pretty clear.

The "watchmaker" analogy

The "watchmaker" analogy, originally formed by William Paley for the existence of God (the argument from design) and since reused as an argument for intelligent design, is cited as an example of a false analogy. In it, Paley suggested that an analogy could be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe.

The analogy is as follows:

The universe is like a watch.
A watch must have a watchmaker.
The universe, being like a watch, must have a maker designer.

The false analogy can be shown by a reduction to the absurd, highlighting the many differences between the universe and a watch. Similar absurdities can be built from almost every other characteristic of watches:

The universe is like a watch.
A watch can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist.
The universe, being like a watch, can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i did not mention anything about formal or informal. Again you seem simply to have made that up, and yes its logically fallacious.

The approach when constructing a reductio argument in formal logic is to assume the converse of whatever it is one wants to prove and demonstrate that that assumption leads to a contradiction so proving the original thesis. It's a formal method used in logic and definitely not fallacious. You might argue that Ghost of a Duke's Badmington argument is fallacious, but not on the grounds that it's a reductio argument - for one thing it's not clear to me that it is one. He's constructed an alternative scenario in which badmington is more important than male reproductive rights, this is not a straightforward converse but one alternative scenario amongst many. He's then pointed out that in that scenario the opposite judgement would apply, I imagine with the intention of pointing out the arbitrariness of the priorities of God assumed in your argument. Taken on those terms I don't think his argument is fallacious as such, it just doesn't prove anything very much, however it does demonstrate that different priorities lead to different judgements. Your argument relies strongly on an assumption about God's priorities which I think you'd need to justify with other examples (the story of Onan would be a good one for that). Personally I don't think that that is the weak point in your argument, I think that your main difficulty is showing that that is the basis for the rule at all. As I said earlier I think it far more likely it's to do with ritual cleanliness and taboos than reproductive rights. Is there a similar penalty if the woman is unmarried, or if it is a man? If not then I think you'll have trouble establishing it is to do with rights and not taboos.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
There was nothing logical, balanced or reasonable about your explanation for the 'crime' in Deut 25 and were yourself in the ludicrous position of trying to defend an ancient, profoundly unjust, man made text, imbuing it with a juxtaposition of divinity. (When it truth ancient man just didn't like having his scrotum yanked).

If one were to need a sneering mercenary 'lawyer' to defend a man who raped his wife, or defend an organization that covered up the sexual abuse of children, or defend an atrocious, demented 'traditional' practice (like female genital mutilation, for example), perhaps someone like robbie carrobie would be your go-to guy. 😀

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. The Torah was written by Moses somewhere between 1250 BCE and 1500 BCE. Not 500 BCE. Moses was long, long dead by then.

There is a bigger time difference between the two than just 500 years. Of course you would spin it that there's not so that your argument can appear to have validity.

"River God" by Wilbur Smith is an excellent (if historically inaccurate) novel set in Ancient Egypt.

It is 22 years old.

Not 3,800 years old.

You understand that right?

Originally posted by DeepThought
The approach when constructing a reductio argument in formal logic is to assume the converse of whatever it is one wants to prove and demonstrate that that assumption leads to a contradiction so proving the original thesis. It's a formal method used in logic and definitely not fallacious. You might argue that Ghost of a Duke's Badmington ...[text shortened]... n? If not then I think you'll have trouble establishing it is to do with rights and not taboos.

Thanks but i have already provided an example with illustration which is beautifully simple and clear and which dispenses with verbose terms which have the tendency to confuse rather than clarify the concept.

The ghost as far as i can discern used a false analogy in attempting to reduce the premise to absurdity. Playing tennis is not the same as sterilizing someone by grabbing their scrotum and the two are so far removed as to constitute a false analogy the same as the universe is so far removed from being like a watch so as to require a maker.

My argument was simply to attempt to understand why the punishment was merited. If like had been given for like and someone had actually become sterile then what must be done? a Hysterectomy? a rather involved procedure for the times likely resulting in death. Amputation preserved the ability to procreate life in the perpetrator while recognizing the severity of the crime. The matter may be given some thought for if it transpired that someone was made sterile what punishment would be fitting? what shall you say to the unfortunate man and his family who have lost the ability to procreate and who to all intents and purposes is now sterile? Sorry old chap but the best i can give her is 200 hours community service? what value will you put on someone being unable to have children? to raise a family and watch them grow? What value sir so as to make a restitution and meet the demands of justice will you place on that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thanks but i have already provided an example with illustration which is beautifully simple and clear and which dispenses with verbose terms which have the tendency to confuse rather than clarify the concept.

The ghost as far as i can discern used a false analogy in attempting to reduce the premise to absurdity. Playing tennis is not the same a ...[text shortened]... at value sir so as to make a restitution and meet the demands of justice will you place on that?

Taking you back to the original text, '...the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent...'

What crime has the wife committed? What was her motive for intervening?' Why is any punishment warranted?

For me, Deut 25 clearly examples a wife who acts to protect her husband. Her motive is not to deliberately damage his ability to reproduce. And yet for this altruistic and loving act an Almighty God would have her hand arbitrarily chopped off? And you support this punishment and actually think it is lenient?!

This concept of God is 'so far removed' from the concept of a just and loving God that it only goes to reinforce its irrelevance in a modern context.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Taking you back to the original text, '...the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent...'

What crime has the wife committed? What was her motive for intervening?' Why is any punishment warranted?

For me, Deut 25 clearly examples a wife who acts to protect her husband. Her motive is not to deliberately damage his ...[text shortened]... ept of a just and loving God that it only goes to reinforce its irrelevance in a modern context.

Sir please are you not, dare i say it, cherry picking a specific clause in the hope that once you isolate it from its brother clauses you can build an argument on it ignoring its immediate context? The punishment was not for helping her husband in a brawl but for grabbing his adversaries scrotum with the potential risk of making him sterile.

It is thus entirely in harmony with the concept of a just and loving God because if like had been given for like then the perpetrator would also be made sterile and yet God in his loving kindness refrains from this and simple seeks to recognize the magnitude of the crime while preserving the perpetrators ability to procreate life, something which they have denied to others through their course and unwarranted action.

Furthermore grabbing someone scrotum is a deliberate act, one must be conscious of it and such is not done unintentionally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Furthermore grabbing someone scrotum is a deliberate act, one must be conscious of it and such is not done unintentionally.

Sounds like you're an aficionado in this area. 😲

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sounds like you're an aficionado in this area. 😲

On the contrary old boy I simply used my powers of deduction like Sherlock Holmes in the case of the Spider Lady which I am watching now. Classic and magical these old black and whites. 😀

YouTube

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?

Take for example Deut 25:11

''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'

Yes, ...[text shortened]... her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.

Are these truly in reference to the same God?!

Yes it is the same God.

The woman's husband was getting his ars kicked, and she intervenes to stop it by grabbing the man's balls assuming she intended for it to hurt. Suppose she had kicked him instead? Would that be ok? What if she had found some object and clubbed the guy? Couldn't she have jumped on him giving her husband a chance to gain an advantage? Why did she grab his nuts?

If you were in a fight and getting beaten would you want your wife to grab the guy's balls? Would your wife think to do that? Or would she intervene in some other way like braking a chair over his head?

In that culture some three thousand years ago it was considered beneath the dignity and virtue of a woman to grab a guy's balls for any reason, unless it's her husband's. 😉 I think the same is true today. At least where a virtuous woman is concerned. Today we don't have the same rules. No one is going to cut off a woman's hand for grabbing a guy's balls, especially if she does it in defense of her husband or a son or something.

Jesus said if your hand offends you, then cut it off. It would be better to enter eternal life mamed than not at all. I think it's both figurative and literal at the same time, but who does that? If I were to cut off my hand and gouge out an eye for every time some part of my body offended God (ultimately that's the issue) I'd have nothing left of me to speak of! 😉

Everything is changed now anyway. Thank God for His grace and mercy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. The Torah was written by Moses somewhere between 1250 BCE and 1500 BCE.

I am curious as to why you think that. Were you told by your pastor? Did you see it in a dream? Did you find it online somewhere? If it was the last one, can you provide a reference?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sir please are you not, dare i say it, cherry picking a specific clause in the hope that once you isolate it from its brother clauses you can build an argument on it ignoring its immediate context? The punishment was not for helping her husband in a brawl but for grabbing his adversaries scrotum with the potential risk of making him sterile.

It ...[text shortened]... e scrotum is a deliberate act, one must be conscious of it and such is not done unintentionally.

If male fertility were that easily destroyed humanity would have become extinct eons ago. On those grounds alone it should be clear that the Bible writers had something else in mind when they wrote the text.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If male fertility were that easily destroyed humanity would have become extinct eons ago. On those grounds alone it should be clear that the Bible writers had something else in mind when they wrote the text.

Actually old bean the preceding verses make it rather clear that the entire passage of Deuteronomy 25 is dealing with the rights of someone to establish progeny and the consequences of preventing it. Let it serve as a lesson to refrain from vociferously fabricating unwarranted assertions while ignoring the immediate context.

Two thumbs up given by complete Bible noobs, now thats scandalous! 😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sounds like God should send some new dude (or dudette) over to write a 21st-Century version.

Why? Modern man is smart enough to "get" the message.

Although looking around, maybe not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to why you think that. Were you told by your pastor? Did you see it in a dream? Did you find it online somewhere? If it was the last one, can you provide a reference?

This is the time frame most Bible scholars place the Exodus.

Perhaps you might have been exposed to the idea if you didn't have a bias that says the Bible is crap.