Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
*Ahem*
It's impossible to prove something which cannot be understood or explained through scientific reasoning. Attempting to do so-- Or even expecting other people to do so-- It's completely illogical.
If you haven't guessed, I REALLY hate argumentum ad ignorantiam. A lack of evidence doesn't equal proof of non-existence. Period.
|
Actually that's my point, since the existence of god(s) cannot be proven, or falsified, I don't really think that it's a valid argument for or against any policy. Nor is it a valid reason to require/expect that I do anything or not do anything.
While a lack of evidence doesn't equal proof of non-existence, it doesn't equal proof of existence either. It simply makes it something not worthy of debate as far as what other people should be requried to do or forbidden from doing as well as a fallacy(appeal to religion). I'm agnostic on religious matters by the way, in that since it can neither be proven nor disproven, I don't believe until such a time as I see evidence one way or the other.
To argue that something is true simply because it hasn't been disproven is also an argumentum ad ignorantium. So using religion to justify an argument ie: "god wants X" is also an argumentium ad ignorantium, becuase you don't have any way to know that god wants x, y, or z, or even that he exists. In addition to being an appeal to religion.
Quote:
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.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
|