You've shown that you didn't understand the fallacy.
I did not say I had more concern about the importance of the name of the fallacy. I did not look for the fallacy to support what I was saying. I knew what you were saying was illogical so I looked to see if there was a fallacy. Go back and read what I actually said.
I consider what you are doing to be obfuscation since you cannot respond to what I said about the black and white fallacy.
You can think whatever, but it means nothing if it doesn't fit the fallacy. So after I showed that you were wrong about that fallacy, and you couldn't understand it, you accused me of obfuscation. Sorry, but I'm not responsible for your ignorance. What is so confusing about something is either perfect or not perfect. I tried using words and numbers and you still didn't understand. The reason why you didn't understand my explanation was because you never understood the black or white fallacy to begin with.
This is just more obfuscation. I do not care that you said black. The discussion is about whether the God’s method of delivering messages is flawed or not flawed.
If you do not care what I said, then it's not my fault that you couldn't understand my explanation. It's dishonest to accuse me of being confusing when you straight up admitted that you didn't care what I said.
Flawed is black and not flawed is white, but there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.
If you'd care what I said, then you would've understand why this is incorrect.
Flawed is black and not flawed is not black. There's nothing in between.
Just like god either exist or don't exist.
The black and white fallacy perfectly applies to anyone who says a method is either flawed or not flawed, for reasons I stated.
No it doesn't. You cannot apply a fallacy on to an argument without first understanding the fallacy. It's more than just replacing the words.
Again…..
What is the black and white fallacy?
The
black-or-
white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted. The
fallacy tries to force you to choose either
black or
white when gray is an available alternative.
The Black-or-White Fallacy - The Fallacy Files
Again, copy and pasting repeatedly is meaningless if you do not understand it.
What is the gray, the other available alternative? It is that the method is not either flawed or not flawed. It is somewhere between the two.
But what is it? What is in between perfect and imperfect?
Just because a method does not work perfectly that does not mean it is flawed, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and not flawed.
That's illogical. Nice try but using different words doesn't make you correct.
The reason using Messengers to communicate caused problems for humans throughout history is because humans are imperfect, so there is no way for a message from God to be received perfectly no matter what the method of delivery was. It does not matter that God is perfect because humans are not perfect so they make mistakes after they get the message from God.
So a flawed method. Got it.
To say that something is flawed is black and white thinking, because nothing is completely flawed (black).
Illogical. The more you try to force the fallacy into an argument that has not committed that fallacy, the ridiculous you look. Just in case you did not know, the black or white fallacy is just the name of the fallacy, and has nothing to do with what we know as "black and white thinking." Adding the word, "completely" in conjunction with "flawed" just shows how irrational you are from trying to save your ego.
Tell me the difference between "black" and "comeplety black." Trying to argue that flawed is more flawed than flawed, imperfect is more imperfect than imperfect, black is more black than black, is irrational.
In logic, there are some things that are true dichotomies, there are only two valid answers.
God either exist or don't exist. Saying that God middle exist, is irrational.
You are either alive or dead. Saying that you are middle dead, is irrational. And Near Death Experience means, you're not dead.
2 + 2 = 4 is either true or false. Saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is half true, is irrational.
Trailblazer is either right or wrong in regards to her claim. Saying that Trailblazer is wrong, means that you are correct.
To say that something is either flawed (black) or not flawed (white) is black and white thinking, because there are shades of gray in between flawed and unflawed, so it could be any percentage from 0% to 100%; for example it could be 50% or 80%.
And all of those percentage, except for 100% are still considered as flawed. The only percentage that is not flawed, is 100%
You're trying to mixing psychology and logic.You are confusing yourself with two separate things here. You claim that the argument, "The method is either flawed or not flawed" as being guilty of committing the Black or White fallacy. I explained why your claim was wrong, and that no logical fallacies were committed. I used logic to justify my point. You tried show that your claim was true, and that the argument consists of the black or white fallacy. You tried to use psychology to justify your point. Like I said before, you are ignorant of that fallacy, what it is, how it's used, and why it's used. At the start of this, I realized that, that's why I to explain it to you, but you didn't care about what I was saying, that's why you remain ignorant of the fallacy.
If you really want to play with definitions these are the definitions.
I don't play with definitions. I work with definitions in order to understand its usage.
Perfect: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics;
as good as it is possible to be.
perfect means - Google Search
Imperfect: not perfect; faulty or incomplete.
imperfect means - Google Search
So anything that does not qualify as "perfect" is considered as imperfect, not perfect.
First, please explain why the method should work perfectly, and how that would even be possible given the human factor, imperfect humans?
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. I argued that the method is flawed and gave my explanation for my argument. Why would I need and/or to explain something that is not mine. Why would/should I think to try to explain someone else's argument? That's the pathway to the strawman argument.
The actual method of delivering messages is as good as it is possible to be, because there is no other method that would work better. Since God is All-Knowing, God would have to know the “best way” to communicate. Since God is infallible, God cannot make a mistake in choosing a method to communicate to humans. All the problems that arise after the message is delivered -- e.g., if humans fail to receive the message, reject the message, or misinterpret the message -- are the result of humans because humans are imperfect.
Argument from ignorance.
