Nothing in life is either perfect or not perfect, that is black and white thinking, thus the fallacy.
As such a method that God uses to communicate is not either flawed or unflawed, because there are other possibilities, shades of gray in between flawed and unflawed. As such just because it has some flaws that does not mean it is not a good method of communication. Just because our 1986 Honda Prelude is old and the paint is peeling off that does not mean it is not a good car. In 20 years, it has cost us less than $1000 in repair bills.
Now that is an example of red herring. We're not talking about cars, paint jobs, or "good," we are talking about the method being flawed or not flawed.
I have no interest in arguing with you to prove I am right about logical fallacies because I don’t need to be right as that is all about ego. I do not even care who is right or wrong about the technical meaning of a fallacy, I only care about the important things in life like God, service to God, and spiritual growth.
Now you're contradicting yourself. We are talking about God's method applying logic for understanding it. If you don't care about using logic correctly, why even discuss logic with God's method.
You've just show that it is all about your ego. You're no longer interested in taking about logical fallacies because you failed to show that you are right. You are using a logical fallacy incorrectly in your discussion that has to do with spiritual growth, and yet you are unwilling to grow by refusing to learn something new. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to grow spiritually, knowledge, wisdom etc. Sounds more like someone who just wants to tell others that they are right just to fill their ego.
This is the gist of black and white thinking:
The Fallacy of Black and White Thinking
When we fall victim to Black and White Thinking, we have mistakenly reduced an entire spectrum of possibilities down to the two most extreme options. Each is the polar opposite of the other without any shades of gray in between. Often, those categories are of our own creation. We attempt to force the world to conform to our preconceptions about what it should look like.
Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Black and White Thinking
If you are going to copy and paste something from a website, don't just post some out of context writings so that it looks as if it aligns with your argument. You didn't post the important part that is relevant to this discussion. So here it is.
- The Black-or-White Fallacy is an unusual one in that, like Begging the Question, it is a validating form of argument, which means that every instance is valid. For example, some instances have the validating form:
Simple Constructive Dilemma:
Either p or q.
If p then r.
If q then r.
Therefore, r.
For this reason, this fallacy is sometimes called "false" or "bogus" dilemma. However, these names are misleading, since not all instances have the form of a dilemma; some instead take the following, also validating form:
Disjunctive Syllogism:
Either p or q.
Not-p.
Therefore, q.
Usually, the truth-value of premisses is not a question for logic, but for other sciences, or common sense. So, while an argument with a false premiss is unsound, it is usually not considered fallacious5. However, when a disjunctive premiss is false for specifically logical reasons, or when the support for it is based upon a fallacy, then the argument commits the Black-or-White Fallacy.
One such logical error is confusing contrary with contradictory propositions: of two contradictory propositions, exactly one will be true; but of two contrary propositions, at most one will be true, but both may be false. For example:
Contradictories
It's hot today. It's not hot today.
Contraries
It's hot today. It's cold today.
A disjunction whose disjuncts are contradictories is an instance of the Law of Excluded Middle, so it is logically true. For instance, "either it's hot today or it's not hot today." In contrast, a disjunction whose disjuncts are contraries is logically contingent. For example, "either it's hot today or it's cold today." If an arguer confuses the latter with the former in the premiss of an argument, they may commit the Black-or-White Fallacy.
The most important thing were it says, about
confusing contrary with contradictory propositions.
So I'm explaining to you that you are incorrect about the fallacy. The "black or white" fallacy and "black and white" thinking are two separate things. I'm not in disagreement with your definition of black and white thinking, it's your definition of the black or white fallacy that is in disagreement.
There's nothing wrong with someone correcting your mistake. And I think that admitting one's own mistake is how one can grow. I care about the truth, whether it's for me or so that someone else will know the truth. That's why I care about talking to you about being right or wrong about a logical fallacy.
If I was to think that Baha'i faith believes that the ressurecion of jesus is true and you tell me that I'm wrong and explain it to me, I will take it in consideration and rethink my position by doing research about it. I appreciate if someone is willing to help me get closer to the truth, even if just telling me once. That, compared to if someone knew that I was mistaken and not correcting me, still go along as if I was right. I knew of the fallacy before having this conversation. After reading your post, I still followed the link you post to see if I was wrong about what I thought of the fallacy. After reading the link, it reassured me that I was correct about the fallacy because what was said in the website supports what I said.
I don't know about you, but I choose to know the truth over staying ignorance.
