- Aug 13, 2016
- 2,919
- 1,243
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
For more info see: The Appeal to Ignorance
Please join me in posting your favorite appeals to ignorance by atheists (especially New Atheists) and theists apologists alike. Please give examples from specific authors and links as support of accuracy.
Example:
"We are only beginning to understand the universe and all that is contained in it. Our current knowledge is very limited right now; we are only beginning to discover the questions let alone the answers. However, this is the job of science and someday, as science progresses, all of these unanswered questions will in fact be answered. In other words, yes, there are mysteries in the universe which may give the appearance of a transcendent being, but, as experience has shown us already with other things that were thought to be of divine origin, these mysteries will eventually be solved and there will be no place for any kind of a "God hypothesis". In short, God is not necessary and science will eventually explain everything in a naturalistic way given enough time." (Craig from Mongolia)
Read more: Naturalistic Appeal to Ignorance | Reasonable Faith
"Did you know you can ask very simple questions to the scientists who claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? You could say to them, in a very nice way of course, "Excuse me, were you there?" You are actually asking them, "Were you there to see the dinosaurs when they first came into existence? Were you there to see them alive? Were you there to see them die out?" Obviously, they weren't there, so how could they really know everything about them?"
Dinosaurs for Kids (2009), p. 14
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
For more info see: The Appeal to Ignorance
Please join me in posting your favorite appeals to ignorance by atheists (especially New Atheists) and theists apologists alike. Please give examples from specific authors and links as support of accuracy.
Example:
"We are only beginning to understand the universe and all that is contained in it. Our current knowledge is very limited right now; we are only beginning to discover the questions let alone the answers. However, this is the job of science and someday, as science progresses, all of these unanswered questions will in fact be answered. In other words, yes, there are mysteries in the universe which may give the appearance of a transcendent being, but, as experience has shown us already with other things that were thought to be of divine origin, these mysteries will eventually be solved and there will be no place for any kind of a "God hypothesis". In short, God is not necessary and science will eventually explain everything in a naturalistic way given enough time." (Craig from Mongolia)
Read more: Naturalistic Appeal to Ignorance | Reasonable Faith
"Did you know you can ask very simple questions to the scientists who claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago? You could say to them, in a very nice way of course, "Excuse me, were you there?" You are actually asking them, "Were you there to see the dinosaurs when they first came into existence? Were you there to see them alive? Were you there to see them die out?" Obviously, they weren't there, so how could they really know everything about them?"
Dinosaurs for Kids (2009), p. 14
Last edited:
