1. God of the gaps
God of the gaps fallacy is a very prominent fallacy in religion, it assumes that because we don’t know the explanation to some things yet hence God did it.
Why is this a fallacy?
Because we don’t know the explanation to a particular scenario now is not an automatic evidence for your god, it’s also not a guarantee that we won’t find out later. The act of filling the gaps with gods means you don’t want to find out, nobody would have discovered/invented anything if they always fill the gaps with gods.

Example: Because we don’t know how Big Bang started hence God must have done it.

2. Appeal to Authority
This fallacy is not also uncommon when debating a religious person, it assumes that because a top and influential individual or group made a statement then the statement must be true whether or not evidence is presented. It assumes that the person must be right because he or she is an expert in that field of discourse, neglecting the fact that one must also provide evidence for whatever he or she says irrespective of his position.
Example: We cannot automatically accept that god exist because some scientists believe in God, we can only accept whatever that scientist successfully prove or provide evidence for.

3. Petitio Principii or fallacy of begging the question
This fallacy occurs when an argument part of the debate already assumes the truth in the conclusion.
Example: when you try to provide evidence for God by using the Bible. The Bible already assumes that the premise is true, your opponent is automatically arguing against the Bible.
You have to go outside of the Bible to find evidence for the claims in the Bible.

4. Pascal’s wager and false dilemma fallacy
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the name for an idea that Blaise Pascal had. Pascal's argument is a simple one: reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. He assumed that since the two options will be “either God exist or he doesn’t”, choosing to believe in God is the best bet because you would have nothing to lose if God doesn’t exist.
But Pascal’s school of thought is a false dilemma fallacy. False Dilemma fallacy is an argument that limits all the options to just two where there are several other options.
Pascal’s wager limited the whole option to “it’s either god exist or he doesn’t” without factoring which God in particular. We have about 4000 gods right now and going by his logic, a belief in any god of the 4000 means you will suffer the consequences of not believing in the remaining 3,999.

5. Russell’s teapot and Burden of proof fallacy
Russel’s teapot analogy succeeded in establishing why those who make positive claim carries the burden of proof.
When some religion can’t provide evidence for their god, they tell you to prove that their God doesn’t exist. That’s a burden of proof fallacy.
Some way you cannot prove that Russel’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti doesn’t exist. The onus is on your to provide evidence for your God.

There are a lot of fallacies but I can only afford time to describe 5. You can add yours.

Let me add a bonus
Fallacy of denying the hypothesis
a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q. For example: Show that if x is irrational, then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start with: “Assume that x is rational.

Example: Religion already assumes a conclusion that their Gods exist, then they start looking for and twisting evidence to support such conclusion, instead of making that hypothesis of god first then later test the hypothesis with experiments before reaching conclusion.

FatherOfJesus:
1. God of the gaps
God of the gaps fallacy is a very prominent fallacy in religion, it assumes that because we don’t know the explanation to some things yet hence God did it.
Why is this a fallacy?
Because we don’t know the explanation to a particular scenario now is not an automatic evidence for your god, it’s also not a guarantee that we won’t find out later.

Wrong! And this is Not True! Why?

Because the FIRST Issue and the Issue on Ground to which The Laws Of Truthful Statement/Argument Laws of Falls called "Fallability or Fallacy) begin to Apply is [b]An Issue Challenging A Settled and Well Grounded Fact that God created All things

So the Dispute revolves around the Question "Did God Create vs. We are not Certain or Convinced that it is God Who created vs. We do not think that it is God Who created but we are Still Checking it vs. We Are Certain that it is not God Who created and we know it is Another!

Therefore, those who know that it is God Who Created must Always say that it is God Who created and prove from that Ground.

Therefore, No Breach of the Law of "God of the Gaps" which may even be an Admission and Proof of the Truth of the Knowledge of God.

FatherOfJesus:

2. Appeal to Authority

Same thing Applies here

FatherOfJesus:

This fallacy is not also uncommon when debating a religious person, it assumes that because a top and influential individual or group made a statement then the statement must be true whether or not evidence is presented.

Correction! The Operative Word Always, is the word, "True".

Every Argument MUST BE WHOLLY TRUE AT ALL TIMES! Not partly True, but wholly True!

If it is well Known and established that the pleaded Authority is True, then IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID CONTRARY EVIDENCE, IT CAN BE RAISED UP AND PLEADED IN AN ARGUMENT, FOR IT IS TRUE ALREADY!

FatherOfJesus:

It assumes that the person must be right because he or she is an expert in that field of discourse, neglecting the fact that one must also provide evidence for whatever he or she says irrespective of his position.

it is The Law, Expert Evidence is Acceptable Evidence of Truth Provided that it is NOT CONTRADICTED BY ANOTHER EXPERT.

You are getting Law Classes for Free!

FatherOfJesus:

Example: We cannot automatically accept that god exist because some scientists believe in God, we can only accept whatever that scientist successfully prove or provide evidence for.

Aside: Yet you Accepted and silently pleaded your own scientists who gave you the idea that "God may not be Existing"

FatherOfJesus:

3. Petitio Principii or fallacy of begging the question
This fallacy occurs when an argument part of the debate already assumes the truth in the conclusion.

"Truth" Again!
When any Fact is known and accepted to be True, it is True because it stands on ground of the Presumption of Truth and the Absence of Contrary Rebutting Evidence.

FatherOfJesus:

4. Pascal’s wager and [b]false dilemma fallacy[/b]
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the name for an idea that Blaise Pascal had. Pascal's argument is a simple one: reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. He assumed that since the two options will be “either God exist or he doesn’t”, choosing to believe in God is the best bet because you would have nothing to lose if God doesn’t exist.

The Operative word Again is True! Not "False Dilemma"

It's opposite is Good and Acceptable Truth that is "True Dilemma"

FatherOfJesus:

But Pascal’s school of thought is a false dilemma fallacy. False Dilemma fallacy is an argument that limits all the options to just two where there are several other options.
Pascal’s wager limited the whole option to “it’s either god exist or he doesn’t” without factoring which God in particular. We have about 4000 gods right now and going by his logic believe in any god of the 4000 means you will suffer the consequences of not

It is not Falls or False because It Is Not Wager or Anyone Who Limited it but THE CONTENTION ITSELF WHO LIMITED IT, BY TRUTH AND FOR TRUTH, TO BE SEEN!

if the Argument is about 4000 gods then no one would raise it up but Arguments are Usually Narrow and they get narrower the more it proceeds!

FatherOfJesus:

5. Russell’s teapot and Burden of proof fallacy
Russel’s teapot analogy succeeded in establishing why those who make positive claim carries the burden of proof.

THE LAW OF PROOF DICTATES THAT "HE WHO ALLEGES OR PROPOSES A CLAIM, MUST PROVE THAT CLAIM, IF HE IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE!

FatherOfJesus:

When some religion can’t provide evidence for their god, they tell you to prove that their God doesn’t exist. That’s a burden of proof fallacy.
Some way you cannot prove that Russel’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti doesn’t exist. The onus is on your to provide evidence for your God.

it is The Law, "HE WHO MAKES A CLAIM HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS CLAIM!"

FatherOfJesus:

There are a lot of fallacies but I can only afford time to describe 5. You can add yours.

The Law of Fallabilties and Falls, is The Law prohibiting All that which is Not Wholly True but is being presented as Truths!

Enjoy your Free Law and Philosophy Class!

If you cannot see the wind but believe it exists, you contradict yourself.

Dtruthspeaker:


Wrong! And this is Not True! Why?

Because you are FIRST Challenging A Settled and Well Grounded Fact that God created All things







3.

Which of the Gods created everything?

Is this not another false dilemma fallacy?

chatinent:
If you cannot see the wind but believe it exists, you contradict yourself.

You can see the wind sir. You can see it by lowering the temperature. You can also see it in cyclones, oceans and tornadoes.
You can measure the wind using a wind gauge , you cannot measure God using any known equipment.


Faulty equivalence fallacy.

Religion is full of fallacies

FatherOfJesus:
Which of the Gods created everything?

Is this not another false dilemma fallacy?

No, it is not for you are standing on my ground and challenging it by asking a reasonable question which places on me the burden of proving which God I (not you) had in mind when I made my statement that God Created everything.

Which is therefore the beginning of an Argument or case as we say in law.

Thus, based on the burden of proof placed on me, I am duty bound to give Truth- Full Evidence, which is where The Laws of Falls, now called False begins to operate.

FatherOfJesus:
Let me add a bonus
Fallacy of denying the hypothesis
a fallacy of denying the hypothesis is an incorrect reasoning in proving p → q by starting with assuming ¬p and proving ¬q. For example: Show that if x is irrational, then x/2 is irrational. A fallacy of denying the hypothesis argument would start with: “Assume that x is rational..

This is where education deceives you with the Teaching of A Lie presented as True, A Fallabiliy itself, (imagine, A Fallacy teaching about fallabilities ) for Natural Living is Not P, Q and X, x/2, G...

We Live on the ground and contract on Real substances which are seen and affect our good welfare or bring us misfortune.

We do not live in dreams or imaginations, thus everything in contest must be seen, felt, and experienced.

imaginations and Contortions are not Allowed nor Permitted!

Dtruthspeaker:


Wrong! And this is Not True! Why?

Because the FIRST Issue and the Issue on Ground to which The Laws Of Truthful Statement/Argument Laws of Falls called "Fallability or Fallacy) begin to Apply is [b]An Issue Challenging A Settled and Well Grounded Fact that God created All things

So the Dispute revolves around the Question "Did God Create vs. We are not Certain or Convinced that it is God Who created vs. We do not think that it is God Who created but we are Still Checking it vs. We Are Certain that it is not God Who created and we know it is Another!

Therefore, those who know that it is God Who Created must Always say that it is God Who created and prove from that Ground.

Therefore, No Breach of the Law of "God of the Gaps" which may even be an Admission and Proof of the Truth of the Knowledge of God.



Same thing Applies here



Correction! The Operative Word Always, is the word, "True".

Every Argument MUST BE WHOLLY TRUE AT ALL TIMES! Not partly True, but wholly True!

If it is well Known and established that the pleaded Authority is True, then IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID CONTRARY EVIDENCE, IT CAN BE RAISED UP AND PLEADED IN AN ARGUMENT, FOR IT IS TRUE ALREADY!



it is The Law, Expert Evidence is Acceptable Evidence of Truth Provided that it is NOT CONTRADICTED BY ANOTHER EXPERT.

You are getting Law Classes for Free!



Aside: Yet you Accepted and silently pleaded your own scientists who gave you the idea that "God may not be Existing"



"Truth" Again!
When any Fact is known and accepted to be True, it is True because it stands on ground of the Presumption of Truth and the Absence of Contrary Rebutting Evidence.



The Operative word Again is True! Not "False Dilemma"

It's opposite is Good and Acceptable Truth that is "True Dilemma"



It is not Falls or False because It Is Not Wager or Anyone Who Limited it but THE CONTENTION ITSELF WHO LIMITED IT, BY TRUTH AND FOR TRUTH, TO BE SEEN!

if the Argument is about 4000 gods then no one would raise it up but Arguments are Usually Narrow and they get narrower the more it proceeds!



THE LAW OF PROOF DICTATES THAT "HE WHO ALLEGES OR PROPOSES A CLAIM, MUST PROVE THAT CLAIM, IF HE IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE!



it is The Law, "HE WHO MAKES A CLAIM HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS CLAIM!"



The Law of Fallabilties and Falls, is The Law prohibiting All that which is Not Wholly True but is being presented as Truths!

Enjoy your Free Law and Philosophy Class!

See Free Online Lectures!

Just to add to your Expert evidence lecture, Expert evidence is accepted as true having first gone through the test of Examination and Cross examination meaning it has been Tested and Tried and found to be True, hence the word Expert attached to it!

Dtruthspeaker:


No, it is not for you are standing on my ground and challenging it by asking a reasonable question which places on me the burden of proving which God I (not you) had in mind when I made my statement that God Created everything.

Which is therefore the beginning of an Argument or case as we say in law.

Thus, based on the burden of proof placed on me, I am duty bound to give Truth- Full Evidence, which is where The Laws of Falls, now called False begins to operate.

Which of the 4,000 gods are you talking about?

Dtruthspeaker:


This is where education deceives you with the Teaching of A Lie presented as True, A Fallabiliy itself, (imagine, A Fallacy teaching about fallabilities ) for Natural Living is Not P, Q and X, x/2, G...

We Live on the ground and contract on Real substances which are seen and affect our good welfare or bring us misfortune.

We do not live in dreams or imaginations, thus everything in contest must be seen, felt, and experienced.

imaginations and Contortions are not Allowed nor Permitted!

So you can reach conclusions before testing hypothesis?

FatherOfJesus:
So you can reach conclusions before testing hypothesis?

I Conclude on Real Living Natural Conditions not contortions, dreams and imaginations.

As we say in Law "Give me the Facts, (not dreams and imaginations) then I"ll give you "Just is"!

Dtruthspeaker:


I Conclude on Real Living Natural Conditions not contortions, dreams and imaginations.

As we say in Law "Give me the Fact, not dreams and imaginations, then I"ll give you "Just is"!

Which of the Gods in question are you trying to prove here?

Dtruthspeaker:


I Conclude on Real Living Natural Conditions not contortions, dreams and imaginations.

As we say in Law "Give me the Facts, (not dreams and imaginations) then I"ll give you "Just is"!

Lets know the god you want to prove so I don’t fire at all cylinders.

Zeus
Odin
Yahweh
Amadioha
Fly Spaghetti Monster
Brahman
Krishna etc.

Which one are you proving?

Dtruthspeaker:


I Conclude on Real Living Natural Conditions not contortions, dreams and imaginations.

As we say in Law "Give me the Facts, (not dreams and imaginations) then I"ll give you "Just is"!

We also have God of Sikhism, he’s name is Waheguru.

Is he the one you are talking about?

Or you want to do Pascal’s wager?

FatherOfJesus:
Which of the Gods in question are you trying to prove here?

I am not yet trying to prove for I have made No allegation.

It rather you who Alleged and gave your evidence in Proof of your Allegation, then I came to REBUT.

I am not on trial to prove, it is rather you who is on trial to defend your allegation if you can Truth Fully Do So!

Dtruthspeaker:


I am not yet trying to prove for I have made No allegation.

It rather you who Alleged and gave your evidence in Proof of your Allegation, then I came to REBUT.

But we have to treat Pascal’s wager also. It’s in the article.

Which of the 4,000 gods is yours?

FatherOfJesus:
Lets know the god you want to prove so I don’t fire at all cylinders.

Zeus
Odin
Yahweh
Amadioha
Fly Spaghetti Monster
Brahman
Krishna etc.

Which one are you proving?

Always reversing the Burden!

He made no allegation as to these matters, therefore it is you who having brought in the allegation who is required to prove!

truespeak:


Always reversing the Burden!

He made no allegation as to these matters, therefore it is you who having brought in the allegation who is required to prove!

Or your god doesn’t exist?

You want me to prove he doesn’t exist?

Russel’s teapot.

FatherOfJesus:
We also have God of Sikhism, he’s name is Waheguru.

Is he the one you are talking about?

Or you want to do Pascal’s wager?

More allegations requiring proof from you!

FatherOfJesus:
But we have to treat Pascal’s wager also. It’s in the article.

Which of the 4,000 gods is yours?

Another Law! Every Issue must have its own independent Truthful Conclusion (Judgement) before another Issue can be validly raised for due examination.

So that the burden of who is to prove is always clear and who is to rebut is also clear too.

truespeak:


More allegations requiring proof from you!

Your God doesnt exist.

Please tell me to prove he doesn’t exist

Dtruthspeaker:


Another Law! Every Issue must have its own independent Truthful Conclusion (Judgement) before another Issue can be validly raised for due examination.

So that the burden of who is to prove is always clear and who is to rebut is also clear too.

burden of proof is not for someone who makes claim, is for someone who makes “positive” claim not for the “negative claim”

God doesn’t exist is a “negative claim.
God exist “positive claim”

No one is going to prove your imaginary friend for you.

FatherOfJesus:
Or your god doesn’t exist?

You want me to prove he doesn’t exist?

Russel’s teapot.

Oga fraud, you made the allegation of 4000 gods, now you have changed post fraudulently to your proving of an issue not yet in contention here!

Bros, that your fraudulent wriggling no go work for here!

FatherOfJesus:
Your God doesnt exist.

Please tell me to prove he doesn’t exist

I have answered you already!

truespeak:


I have answered you already!

does your exist?

FatherOfJesus:
does your exist?

Bros, no wriggling is allowed!

truespeak:


Bros, no wriggling is allowed!

does your god exist?

I think you are ashamed of him.

Does he exist?

FatherOfJesus:
does your god exist?

I think you are ashamed of him.

Does he exist?

Mr Wriggle Wriggle Wriggle!

Wriggling all the way!

B

truespeak:


Mr Wriggle Wriggle Wriggle!

Wriggling all the way!

Seems you are afraid to say if your God exist or not.

Nawa oo, tell me about your God na. Are you ashamed?

FatherOfJesus:
BSeems you are afraid to say if your God exist or not.

Nawa oo, tell me about your God na. Are you ashamed?

More Wrigglings from Mr earthworm!

FatherOfJesus:
burden of proof is not for someone who makes claim, is for someone who makes “positive” claim not for the “negative claim”

God doesn’t exist is a “negative claim.
God exist “positive claim”

No one is going to prove your imaginary friend for you.

You do real-eyes that I am a Lawyer, and I am the one who Teaches Burden of Proof Anywhere in the world?

The Universal Law Settled world over is "He who Alleges any Fact whether positive, negative or neutral, Has the Burden of Proving the Truth of that Fact"!

You do not fabricate or manufacture Burden of proof, we lawyers are the Scientists from whose lab Burden of proof is Tested and Approved to be fit for consumption, which is what The Law has Said!

Remember Expert Evidence and you are not the expert, I am.

Please, be respectful and do not argue with me about burden of proof, for you argue because your life is not in danger of certain death and great loss which you will only experience when you have been brought before, A Court!

Every lawyer deals with real life and death of souls therefore we know how an error in misplacing the burden of proof can kill an innocent, so we protect against making such errors with our whole soul and life and you do not.

So please be respectful and stay out of arguing this, for you know not Truly what you say and do.

When you have a real case in your life take that thinking, go to Court, do not engage a lawyer and use it to defend yourself!

If you are successful, call me up and i'll honour you!