|
Real0ne -> RE: reasons for being religious or atheist (3/22/2016 8:03:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blnymph
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: blnymph
as you and - I hope - everybody else can see this post was not about any of your posts at all but about some - in my opinion fundamental - flaw in DS' argument which was repeated several times on the first pages of this thread and seems to be of "proof" quality for some.
Except that God is postulated to be beyond time and space: the Creator of time and space and all within it. God would have to be bounded by time and space in order for there to be a prior Creator who existed "before" him.
K.
that's just the point: God may be "postulated" but that is no proof but rather the opposite
and to expand on that, no proof is not disproof, hence the reason I dont bother with that argument.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Overview
Basic argument
Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.
hence anything that is not a fact is a belief, hence atheists despite their delusional protests have lots of beliefs, unless of course they are neutral, then they would not be atheists but agnostics. Reality is such a tough pill for some to swallow.
|
|
|
|
