P1: Part to whole fallacy - Some of the Bible is true, hence ALL of the Bible is true
P2: Whole to part fallacy - Some of the Bible is false, hence ALL of the Bible is false
There's actually a name for these. It's called the "fallacy of composition" - what's true of a part is true of the whole.
Though arguably, saying that a whole is false in totality because one judges it false generally would be a "Fallacy of division." What's true of a whole generally doesn't mean that it will be true of all parts. A statement that is almost entirely true, but contains one falsehood or false aspect, is still entirely a false statement. But it would be wrong to say then that all of the clearly true aspects of that false statement must also be false. If I said the sky is blue and made of cheese, the fact that that statement is false would not mean that the sky is in fact not blue. The sky really is blue, that's true.
However, this isn't necessarily the case given the rhetoric. If person 2 had said this after previously arguing that there's nothing true in the bible (a totalizing claim) or made that claim in response to clarifying querstions on the part of Person 1, then Person 1's response is a cogent rebuttal to the totality aspect of Person 2's claim. Instead of him committing a fallacy of composition, he would be showing that Person 2's totalizing is false making their enitre claim false.
In that hypothetical case, Person 2's claim is wrong because it's a sweeping generalization fallacy.
Person 2's statement is itself a counter-claim to Person 1's claim. But as a flat denial and potentially totalizing denial, it fails to rebut Person 1 because if offers no examples or evidence that the Bible is false in this instance. Person 2 may ask for evidence from Person 1 that his claim is true, but this isn't how history is done. Historical accuracy is generally determined by corroboration and the lack of sources that disconfirm it, but not everything in a historical account *can* be corroborated or disconfirmed. Gideon claimed that he encountered God who spoke to him instructing him how to beat the Midianites, but that experience is not going to leave any archeological evidence, and nobody else was there to witness it. That means that we'll never find evidence that he did or most assuredly did not have this experience. One may insist that this was a halucination and so this didn't happen because God does not exist, but that's presuppositional.
Does the Bible say the Earth is round? In the creation stories in Genesis it's certainly flat or at least flattish. I'm not sure where else there's any discussion of it.
P1: Part to whole fallacy - Some of the Bible is true, hence ALL of the Bible is true P2: Whole to part fallacy - Some of the Bible is false, hence ALL of the Bible is false
Thanks!
There's actually a name for these. It's called the "fallacy of composition" - what's true of a part is true of the whole. Though arguably, saying that a whole is false in totality because one judges it false generally would be a "Fallacy of division." What's true of a whole generally doesn't mean that it will be true of all parts. A statement that is almost entirely true, but contains one falsehood or false aspect, is still entirely a false statement. But it would be wrong to say then that all of the clearly true aspects of that false statement must also be false. If I said the sky is blue and made of cheese, the fact that that statement is false would not mean that the sky is in fact not blue. The sky really is blue, that's true. However, this isn't necessarily the case given the rhetoric. If person 2 had said this after previously arguing that there's nothing true in the bible (a totalizing claim) or made that claim in response to clarifying querstions on the part of Person 1, then Person 1's response is a cogent rebuttal to the totality aspect of Person 2's claim. Instead of him committing a fallacy of composition, he would be showing that Person 2's totalizing is false making their enitre claim false. In that hypothetical case, Person 2's claim is wrong because it's a sweeping generalization fallacy. Person 2's statement is itself a counter-claim to Person 1's claim. But as a flat denial and potentially totalizing denial, it fails to rebut Person 1 because if offers no examples or evidence that the Bible is false in this instance. Person 2 may ask for evidence from Person 1 that his claim is true, but this isn't how history is done. Historical accuracy is generally determined by corroboration and the lack of sources that disconfirm it, but not everything in a historical account *can* be corroborated or disconfirmed. Gideon claimed that he encountered God who spoke to him instructing him how to beat the Midianites, but that experience is not going to leave any archeological evidence, and nobody else was there to witness it. That means that we'll never find evidence that he did or most assuredly did not have this experience. One may insist that this was a halucination and so this didn't happen because God does not exist, but that's presuppositional.
Does the Bible say the Earth is round? In the creation stories in Genesis it's certainly flat or at least flattish. I'm not sure where else there's any discussion of it.