Logical Fallacies: Argument From Ignorance

[The Neo Nerd]

This is the first in a series of posts on common logical fallacies commonly used in the arguments for or against the existence of some form of deity.

I plan on presenting the fallacy and give examples of arguments used by BOTH sides.

I plan on presenting these in a consistent format so that the links can be posted in threads when a logical fallacy is presented.

So without further ado i present Argument From Ignorance

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven.[1]
General form of the argument:

1. P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
2. P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.

The Atheistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does exist, therefore one must not exist.

The Theistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does not exist, therefore one must exists

 

[Daniel09]

Most Atheists I know do not assert that a deity must not exist, merely that they do not have a reason to believe one does.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Most Atheists I know do not assert that a deity must not exist, merely that they do not have a reason to believe one does.

This is not a discussion on the existence of god.

This is a discussion of the different logical fallacies that many use in their arguments.

However i believe that the argument you present is called argument from incredulity.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be true) therefore P must be false.
2. It's obvious that P (or I can't imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or obvious and yet still be false.

This is the next fallacy i will be discussing.

-Q

 

[Dunemeister]

What kind of "discussion" did you hope to have with respect to these fallacies? Did you expect debate? Personal experiences? Or what? I ask because I'm interested but unsure how to respond.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

What kind of "discussion" did you hope to have with respect to these fallacies? Did you expect debate? Personal experiences? Or what? I ask because I'm interested but unsure how to respond.

I guess discussion was a bad term.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I do this for this reason.

I plan on presenting these in a consistent format so that the links can be posted in threads when a logical fallacy is presented.

If you would like to discuss this then go ahead but that wasnt the purpose of this thread.

I guess i just like order and simplicity and let's face it this is the easiest, quickest, cleanest way of pointing out logical fallacies.

And let's face it, they are used by BOTH atheists and theists in debates.

 

[Tathagata]

The Atheistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does exist, therefore one must not exist.

No. The Atheist position is that there is NO GOOD REASON to believe in God.

The Theistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does not exist, therefore one must exists

I think the Theist argument from ignorance is more along the lines of "I cannot possibly imagine any other way, therefore God did it."

 

[The Neo Nerd]

LOL i'm trying to keep these threads as neutral as possible.

I think the Theist argument from ignorance is more along the lines of "I cannot possibly imagine any other way, therefore God did it."

I think that would be argument for incredulity.

No. The Atheist position is that there is NO GOOD REASON to believe in God.

and probably this one to.

-Q

 

[wmjbyatt]

I think it deserves to be pointed out that the insistence on logical consistency stems, actually, from an Incredulity Fallacy. That is to say, people can't understand how things would operate without logic to hold them together. This is, indeed, an example of the Incredulity Fallacy. As a matter of fact, the understanding of these Fallacies as fallacies is one great big meta incredulity argument.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I think it deserves to be pointed out that the insistence on logical consistency stems, actually, from an Incredulity Fallacy. That is to say, people can't understand how things would operate without logic to hold them together. This is, indeed, an example of the Incredulity Fallacy. As a matter of fact, the understanding of these Fallacies as fallacies is one great big meta incredulity argument.

LOL a incredulity argument on incredulity arguments. Very nice.

Actually i would say my insistence on consistency is compensation for my own feelings of powerlessness.

-Q

 

[Willamena]

I guess discussion was a bad term.

Lecture?

 

[Beaudreaux]

This is the first in a series of posts on common logical fallacies commonly used in the arguments for or against the existence of some form of deity.

I plan on presenting the fallacy and give examples of arguments used by BOTH sides.

I plan on presenting these in a consistent format so that the links can be posted in threads when a logical fallacy is presented.

So without further ado i present Argument From Ignorance

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atheistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does exist, therefore one must not exist.

The Theistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does not exist, therefore one must exists

Excellent OP! Frubals coming after this post.

I hear the Argument from Ignorance a lot on both sides. I use an inductive argument loosely based on this to explain why I do not assert a belief in God.

- I find no empirical evidence for the existence of God, therefore I do not assert the existence of one.
​

I find this eminently practical because there is an infinite list of things for which I find no empirical evidence and deciding not to assert their existence gives me lots of free time to do other things around the house.

​

 

[Magic Man]

I think that would be argument for incredulity.

No, it's not. There is no fallacy in saying "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore I don't have good enough reason to believe he exists". And that's the thing you'll hear most atheists say. I don't remember hearing an atheist say "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore he must not exist".

 

[logician]

This is the first in a series of posts on common logical fallacies commonly used in the arguments for or against the existence of some form of deity.

I plan on presenting the fallacy and give examples of arguments used by BOTH sides.

I plan on presenting these in a consistent format so that the links can be posted in threads when a logical fallacy is presented.

So without further ado i present Argument From Ignorance

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atheistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does exist, therefore one must not exist.

The Theistic Argument:

It cannot be proven that a deity does not exist, therefore one must exists

Your logic is questionable, because the onus is on the POSTIVE assertion to make their case. Again, Russells's celestial teapot argument applies.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Lecture?

Yep, that's the word I was looking for.

Thankyou,

-Q

 

[Dunemeister]

I do this for this reason.

Okay, that clarifies it. Thanks!

 

[Dunemeister]

Your logic is questionable, because the onus is on the POSTIVE assertion to make their case. Again, Russells's celestial teapot argument applies.

Only if the person making the positive assertion is trying to convince someone in the rhetorical context of a formalised debate. Otherwise not.

I have no obligation to "make a case" to people that God exists. For instance, let's assume we're friends. (Stranger things have happened.) As friends, we might talk about the deeper issues of life, and the conversation could turn to God. I might tell you about my experience of God both personally and in community with believers, and explain to you that I feel utterly compelled to believe, though without providing any rationale, speaking only of my experience, perceptions, and conclusions. I've told you my story, and I even hope that you come to believe as I do. Have I failed in any duty? I can't see why. I may not convince you, but I don't see that I have an obligation to do that, either.

EDIT: It's also true that in the context of a formalised debate the negative side also carries a burden of proof.

 

[McBell]

No, it's not. There is no fallacy in saying "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore I don't have good enough reason to believe he exists". And that's the thing you'll hear most atheists say.

Agreed

I don't remember hearing an atheist say "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore he must not exist".

richardlowellt

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...84834-allergies-other-proofs-against-god.html

Starting at about post #120

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if the person making the positive assertion is trying to convince someone in the rhetorical context of a formalised debate. Otherwise not.

I think that in terms of conversations, generally, the burden of proof lies with the person who is trying to convince the other of something.

Most of the time, I dislike it when atheists or other non-theists pull out the "burden of proof" argument in a debate. However, I think it's valid in one application: approaching our own individual beliefs consistently.

When I'm first presented with a claim, any claim, I may have no evidence at my disposal to use as the basis for a decision. Until then, how should I approach the claim? Should I tentatively reject it or accept it?

I think it would be unworkable if acceptance was my default position. This would lead to me accepting multiple conflicting claims and accepting mutually exclusive things as true at the same time. This means that if I have a default position (and IMO, a person would have to have one out of necessity), it should be tentative rejection of unsupported claims.

Once I do this, if consistency matters to me, I would have to justify any special cases where I deviate from my general rule and tentatively accept an unsupported claim as true, based on the specific merits of that special case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's not. There is no fallacy in saying "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore I don't have good enough reason to believe he exists". And that's the thing you'll hear most atheists say. I don't remember hearing an atheist say "There is no objective evidence for God, therefore he must not exist".

Depending on the particular god in question, I'd have no problem making that claim.

A god-claim will suggest certain charateristics for the god in question. Sometimes, those characteristics have implications and create predictions for natural, observable phenomena. If we can determine that these natural, observable phenomena do not exist, then we can conclude that the god in question also does not exist.

IOW,

if A, then B implies if not B, then not A