click here to learn more about being redeemed from sin and set free to serve God in spirit and in truth. click here to learn more about holiness click here to learn more about being changed into the same image click here to learn more about sowing and reaping click here to learn more about the free gift of righteousness. click here to learn more about how faith gives us access to grace and grace does the works. click here to learn more about faith and how it comes. click here to learn more about acknowledging Jesus click here to learn more about how God speaks Who will you listen to?  Click here to learn more. click here to learn more about the pattern of God. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for individuals, marriage, and family. click here to learn more about the pattern of God for the local church click here to learn more about the Church universal
 
SeekFind Logo Menu

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

 

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

The fallacy of argument from consequences occurs when someone argues that something is false because believing in it would have negative consequences or that something is true because not believing in it would have negative consequences. This argument is irrational because it gives a consequence (often imagined) and says that, because of this consequence, something is true or false.

Should we not think about consequences then?

Of course consequences are important, but they need to be stated as the reason for doing or not doing something rather than the reason that the cause of the consequences is true. Consequences cannot make something true or false. For instance, if someone is backing slowly toward a cliff unaware of the danger, you don't say, The proof that there is a cliff is the fact that if you fall you will kill yourself. If someone has not received Christ as Savior and has never thought through the consequences, you don't say, The proof that Jesus Christ exists and that you need Him as Savior is that, if you don't receive Him, you will end up in Hell. If someone is thinking about entering into some form of addictive behavior: sexual sin or thought, sight, or deed; drugs; drinking; anger and bitterness; violence; stealing; lying, you don't say, The proof that these things are sinful is that if you engage in them, you will suffer consequences. (see fallacy abuse below)

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

“Creation is not science and ought not to be taught in schools. If we teach in schools, children will not learn to think.”

Along with the other obvious logical fallacies in this statement, this is the logical fallacy of argument from consequences.”

"Of course global warming is a reality. Have you thought about what is going to happen? It will be the end of the world as we know it unless we can have a totalitarian worldwide government."

The appeal to consequences doesn't prove global warming. There is almost no global warming happening over the last 15 years. * In fact, the one-world-government people started with the alarm over global cooling in the 1970s and are now switching to the term, "climate change," so that every event that happens can be proof of this potential disaster.

"The resolution focused on the way that creationists across the continent, using the model pioneered in America, have been targeting education, and warned of 'a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science'. 'An ‘all things are equal’ attitude,' it concludes, 'may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.'"

This remark, by Peter C Kjærgaard, was posted on his website. This implies that the teaching of creation, or even teaching the whole truth about the problems with evolution, would cause confusion. The article assumes evolution to be true and creation to be false without giving any evidence to support the claim Mixing evolution with creation is claimed to cause confusion, as if evolution were a religion. If Peter is right, then we can’t let the children hear both sides of the issue. It would be dangerous. This is an argument from consequences, where supposed consequences are substituted for reasons that Peter thinks we all ought to believe in evolution.

“God doesn’t exist. And, there is no evidence for God. And I’m not going to seek Him as you suggest, because I’m not going to be subject to any God.”

The feared consequence is being subject to God—an absolute consequence of submitting one’s life to Him. However, the reason given for not looking at the evidence is the consequence. For this reason, it is irrational to claim that the consequence is evidence that God does not exist. (See if you can see any of the other logical fallacies with this line of reasoning.)

Fallacy Abuse

John Morris, in his writings, gave reasons that creation ought to be taught in school and evolution ought not to be taught in school. Two of those reasons were the consequences of teaching creation versus evolution. All the others dealt with the truth of creation versus the falsity evolution. Atheists were quick to accuse John Morris of the fallacy of argument from consequences. Here is why the Atheists are guilty of fallacy abuse. John Morris used logic that was sound when he was proving the truth of creation and the error of evoluiton. His arguments were also sound when proving that evolution ought not to be taught in school and creation ought to be taught in school. The Atheists making the claim against John Morris, accused him of trying to prove creation when John was proving that evolution ought not to be taught in schools. That is a different point altogether.

Fallacy Abuse

Rocky: "The thing is that you have the responsibility to know about Jesus for yourself. Each person is responsible for himself or herself. And Jesus is verifiable. Here is the method to verify and validate. Go to Him in sincerity, respect, and a desire to do His will. Yield yourself to Him. Ask Him to come to you and to forgive you for your sins. He will then begin to show you not only His reality but His will and the validity of the Bible. I can't make you do that though. It wouldn't do any good if I could. If you are claiming that you don't know, God says that you do, so you would have to convince Him. What I think is of no consequence to anyone.

Sandy: "That's the logical fallacy of argument from consequences."

Rocky: "There is a fallacy of appeal to consequences, that is, using consequences as proof that something is true rather than that something either ought to be done or ought not to be done. Consequences cannot prove that the cause of the consequences is actually something real--that the threat is real. The fact that there are consequences is not a fallacy. It is fallacious to say that consequences prove anything to be true. But that is not what happened here. And I didn't use my own experience as proof or consequences as proof. I told you that I have proved it to myself and that you can also prove it to yourself. And I told you how. As to consequences, there are consequences in life. To realize this is not a fallacy.

Say you are backing toward a cliff and someone shouts out to stop or you will fall, but you don't turn around an look. You just keep backing up. To you, there is no proof that you can see. They tell you to turn around and look but you refuse. Will there be consequences when you fall? Of course. However, just because someone tells you there is a cliff and you will fall and that they can see it, these are not fallacies because they are not given to convince you of the truth of the cliff but to warn you of the presence of the cliff. You have to take action to see the cliff for yourself.

I don't want to try to convince you of anything. I have told you the Truth and told you how to verify and validate. I didn't tell you the consequences because you already know all about those to the point where you react to any indication that there might be consequences. I didn't tell you these things as proof of anything, so there is no fallacy. As to the proof, you would find the proof by following the instructions I gave you: seeking God in that specific way. You didn't say that you would not do this. Whether or not you do is up to you and doesn't affect me, since only you have the responsibility for your decision and the consequences. The walking backwards towards a cliff is a very accurate analogy. It gets all of what I mentioned just now except that the consequence is understated."



Author/Compiler
Last updated: Aug, 2014
 
 




Bread Crumbs

 
Home     >   Meaning     >   Christian Witness     >   Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies     >   Relevance Fallacies of Distraction     >   Parade of the Horribles

Main

Foundations

Home

Meaning

Bible

Dictionary

History

Toons & Vids

Quotations

Similar

Logical Fallacy of Avoiding the Issue / Avoiding the Question / Missing the Point / Straying Off the Subject / Digressing / Distraction

Logical Fallacy of Misleading Vividness

Logical Fallacy of Dodging the Question

Logical Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi / Irrelevant Conclusion

Logical Fallacy of Irrelevant Question

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Bribery / Appeal to Motives in Place of Support

Logical Fallacy of Red Herring / Digression / Diversion / Evading the Issue / Side-tracking

Dodge of Answering a Question with a Question

Dodging by Answering a Different Question / Answering a Question That Was Not Asked

Logical Fallacy of Non-Support

Logical Fallacy of Logic Chopping / Quibbling / Quibble / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality

Admitting a Small Fault to Cover a Big Denial

Logical Fallacy of Arguing a Minor Point and Ignoring the Main Point

Logical Fallacy of Ad Misericordiam / Appeal to pity / Appeal to Sympathy / The Galileo Argument

Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Appeal to Pity)

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Novelty / appeal to the New / Ad Novitam

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to High Tech

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition / Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem / Appeal to Common Practice / Appeal to Antiquity / Proof from Tradition / Appeal to Past Practice / Gadarene Swine Fallacy / Traditional Wisdom

Logical Fallacy of The Way We Have Always Done It

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Desperation

Straw Man Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Extension

In a Certain Respect and Simply / Secundum Quid Et Simpliciter Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Extremes

Logical Fallacy of Taking a Quote Out of Context / Contextomy (type of) / Abstraction / Quote Mining

Logical Fallacy of Misquoting

Logical Fallacy of Accent / Accent Fallacy / Accent by Emphasis / Emphatic Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Accent by Abstraction / Emphasis by Abstraction

Misleading Context Fallacy / Contextomy

Logical Fallacy of Misinterpretation

The Mind Game of Playing Dumb

Logical Fallacy of Arcane Explanation

Logical Fallacy of Hyperbole

Logical Fallacy of Exaggeration / Stretching the Truth / Overstatement

Logical Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis

Logical Fallacy of Burden of Proof / Shifting the Burden of Proof

Logical Fallacy of Demanding an Uneven Burden of Proof / Demanding Uneven Standards of Acceptance

Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Argument to Moderation / Argumentum Ad Temperantiam / Middle Ground / False Compromise

Logical Fallacy of False Fallacy / Fallacy Abuse

Logical Fallacy of Confusing an Explanation with Proof

Logical Fallacy of Moralism

Logical Fallacy of Ought-Is / Moralistic Fallacy / Moral Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Is-Ought / Is-Ought Fallacy / Arguing From Is to Ought / Is-Should Fallacy / Hume's Law / Hume's Guillotine

Naturalistic Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Notable Effort

Logical Fallacy of Political Correctness / Political Correctness Fallacy / PC Fallacy

False Compromise Fallacy

Logical Fallacy of Lip Service

Logical Fallacy of Tokenism

Logical Fallacy of Argument by Denial / Paralipsis Attack / Paralepsis / Apophasis

Diminished Responsibility Fallacy

Contrarian Argument Fallacy


Recent

Home

Answer to Critic

Appeal to Possibility

Circular Reasoning

Argument to the Future

Insignificant Cause

Word Magic

Love Between a Man and Woman

Author/Compiler

Colossians 2

Righteousness & Holiness

Don't Compromise

Sin

Proof by Atheism

Scriptures About Marriage

Genuine Authority

The Reason for Rejecting Truth

Witness on the Internet

Flaky Human Reasoning

How Do You Know?



Featured


The Real Purpose of the Church

The Real Purpose of Life

From Glory to Glory

REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT

REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT

How to be Led by God

How to Witness

Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality

Holiness & Mind/Soul

Redemption: Free From Sin

Real Reality

Stories Versus Revelation

Understanding Logic

Logical Fallacies

Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?

How Can We Know Anything?

God's Word

God's Process

God's Pattern

Mind Designed to Relate to God

Answers for the Confused

Fossil Record Says: "Creation"

Avoid These Pitfalls

Public School's Religion

Twisting Science

Evolutionism

Public School Failures

Twisting History


How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question

more info: mouseover or click

The complexity of Gods Way understood in a single diagram
Obey your flesh and descend into darkness