(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Another logical fallacy is moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar. So it's an argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other, often greater, evidence is demanded. That's just never enough. Some people, it's just never enough, right? You could show them, well, I don't believe that Jesus Christ's soul was in hell for those three days and three nights. Okay, well how about we look at Acts chapter two, and I'll show you where the Bible says that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh should see corruption. Oh, well, you know, that's not good. But he didn't suffer in hell. He didn't, you know, and then it's just, well, okay, where did I just come up with it? Did I just make this up ahead? No, I've had these discussions plenty of times. And no matter what you say, people just are resistant to just, oh, okay, well that's what it actually says. And I'll tell you what, when you see, when I see people like that, I'll move on. I like to talk to people, I like to try to convince people, I like to try to show them evidence and be able to prove my point, but if someone just doesn't want to receive the truth, don't waste your time. Don't waste your time with them. Because it is just a waste of time at that point. When people start adding extra, you know, raising the bar or moving the goal posts, see ya. Because you know what that shows? There's no intellectual honesty on their part. You're not interested in knowing what the truth is at that point. You're either just interested in winning an argument or not losing an argument or just holding on to something that's not true. I have no interest in that foolishness. Proving too much, another fallacy, proving too much. Using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used to reach an additional invalid conclusion. So the evidence or the argument they're presenting, even though they're trying to prove just one small point, if what they're saying would be true, then causes an error somewhere else, that makes that argument invalid. It makes that a fallacy, it's not valid. So where do we see this in religion or in doctrine? I've thought of two things right off the top of my head. Calvinism and dispensationalism. Calvinism wants to prove how God is all powerful. And look, that's true, we believe that. God is all powerful. He's omnipotent, he's omnipresent, he's omniscient, he knows all things, he's everywhere, he's all powerful. No argument, and the scripture clearly supports those things. But in their zeal to kind of prove this sovereignty aspect of God, which again, I'm not saying God's not sovereign of being able to do what he wants to do. They take it an extra step into saying, ultimately, that because God is so sovereign, that nothing happens unless he makes it happen. And that's the proving too much, because now all of a sudden what you have is a God that ultimately, in that case, that denies free will. If everything bad that happens in the world happens because that's what God wanted to happen, everything from a child being molested to some woman being raped, well, God just wanted that to happen. No, no. That's a different God. So they go from one truth, but then end up going too far and end up overreaching and causing problems on their argumentation. Dispensation's the same thing. It's one thing to say, well, things were a little bit different in the Old Testament than they are today. Okay, yeah, they were. Things were a little bit different in the Garden of Eden than they are today. Sure, yeah, they were, before sin entered in the world. Yes, things were a little bit different. But then they take that just observation, which is not even a doctrine really. I mean, it's just an observation that things have progressed different. The biggest doctrine would be maybe Old Testament versus New Testament because there was a significant change there to then saying, oh, well, salvation is different than in the Old Testament. They had to be saved by their works and saved by these blood sacrifices, everything else. No, now you've proven too much. You've gone too far with your thinking of just making these different groups of time periods and now starting applying too much to that. And it's just no longer true what you're saying. It's invalid because the Bible teaches that salvation's always been by grace through faith. In the New Testament, it says if it were possible for the blood of the bulls and goats to save, right, then why would Jesus have to come? If it's possible, then Christ died in vain. And what's the point? It was never possible. It's never possible for works to save anyone. It's never possible for shedding the blood of bulls and goats to wash away anybody's sins, ever. Never been the case. I don't care what year you were living in.