I'm gonna need you to prove to me that there are no unicorns.
Welcome Guest!
What Is True?
- Thread starter ambush80
- Start date
I'm gonna need you to prove to me that there are no unicorns.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Showing a decomposed body doesn't disprove an afterlife. It only shows that something died.
Try again.
ambush80
Senior Member
I can't....but, really?
Go around telling people that you believe in unicorns because they can't be proven not to exist. Wear that around for a while and see how it feels.
WaltL1
Senior Member
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 proved 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 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,
1. true
2. false
3 .unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof
My point is you can't see unicorns any more than you see God, but you don't spend all day every day arguing the non-existence of unicorns. There seems to be a difference in the underlying agenda.
In other words, when you say "I'm open to the possibility", we're not seeing that openness.
In other words, when you say "I'm open to the possibility", we're not seeing that openness.
660griz
Senior Member
I have never had anyone come up to me and state that they live their life based on a conversation with a unicorn or a book the unicorn wrote.
We don't have laws based on what the unicorn said. Nobody starts wars or kills folks to please the unicorn...that I know of.
I don't spend all day every day. I come here every once in awhile to hopefully help people.
WaltL1
Senior Member
So lets see, you are using an argument from ignorance and its our fault that we reject it.
Because we aren't "open to it".
ambush80
Senior Member
I'm open to the possibility of Unicorns existing somewhere. What can I give you other than my word?
But MUCH more importantly is this:
I want to help, too.
So lets see, you are using an argument from ignorance and its our fault that we reject it.
Because we aren't "open to it".
So why tell people you are open to it then. Why don't you be more open about your un-openness?
How do you know you're helping and not actually hurting?
If you say you're open to the existence of unicorns, but then turn around and constantly discredit the possibility they exist to a believer in unicorns, how is that helping?
Sounds to me that you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Welder, no shakkaka.
The decomposing body is as far as I can go and be accurate. Anything more from me or you is just a guess.
And THAT is the point that you cannot seem to grasp.
With the exception of the killing folks part, why are the other things you mentioned so bad?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Because we are able to look at both sides objectively and argue points against to narrow what is more likely or not to be true.
All these things you try to use as facts we have already debunked them long ago and we hope that you, richie or any one of the other 2 billion believers can come up with something that knocks our socks off.
But so far....nada.
WaltL1
Senior Member
Its almost a miracle the way you consistently miss the point.
1. You are using an argument from ignorance.
2. We recognize that.
3. You don't recognize that. (even though I already gave you the definition of it)
4. Due to the fact that it is an argument from ignorance, it is therefore rejected.
5. What we are "open to or not open to" plays absolutely no part in it.
6. Your argument is the problem but you seem to be unwilling or unable to recognize that.
Sure. That's fine, but don't come in here under the false impression that you're open to it, when you openly and plainly reject it. It's not so much a dishonesty toward me that's the issue, but the being dishonest to your self.
That's your opinion.
WaltL1
Senior Member
I gave you the definition of argument from ignorance.
That wasn't my opinion.
If there were 500+ eyewitnesses that came forth and said they saw a mermaid off the coast of Florida, you would want to find out how all 500 saw the exact same thing and testified the same thing.
But yet there were 500+ eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection. You reject that testimony. Don't you think they investigated the testimonies in that day with scrutiny over such a miraculous claim? You know they did.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
OYG,
you are stuck in the same debunked rut and instead of taking the help you are given you just floor the accelerator digging yourself deeper.
NOWHERE except the bible are any of those witnesses mentioned.
NOBODY outside of the bible mentioned it. It is recorded NOWHERE else in Jewish or Roman history.
Yes welder they did investigate miraculous claims.
They did not invesigate 500 witnesses to a resurrection because no resurrection took place.
Your argument of ignorance is only surpassed by your willingness of ignorance.
You keep bringing up the very things you have been shown are incorrect over and over and over. It is borderline insanity.
