NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (NoName @ May 28 2016,12:34) | Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2016,12:27) | 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. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance |
Perfectly self-descriptive of one aspect of your obsessive delusion.
Your "theory" is proven false by the formal logical fallacy of vicious circularity.
You are unable even to divide up the world nor any multi-membered subset thereof into those things best expained by intelligent causes and those best explained by non-intelligent causes.
Epic fail, same as it ever was, you pathetic loser. |
Lest you miss the actual sharp end of this stick, as you are certain to do, let me elaborate on why you get not just an 'epic fail' flag next to your name but an 'epic moron' blazon as well.
Your failure to be able to specify a rule or method by which specific features of the universe best explained by intelligent cause could be identified as such, your failure to even enumerate any specific features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent cause, combines with the circularity of your explanation in a perfect storm of stupid. Here's how -- we would ordinarily expect that a notion that is viciously circular would at least be applicable across its range of targets. You can't specify such a range. You can't specify a means by which such a range could be specified or identified. We, on the other hand, have enumerated a variety of features of the universe widely held to be best explained by intelligent cause. We don't claim it is exhaustive, we don't need to. Despite its vicious circularity, your ridiculous little "theory" cannot account for these features! I refer, of course, to the generation of theories, the composition of melodies, the recognition of melodies when transposed into a previously unheard key, the crafting of the plot for a novel, the ability to plan, to forecast likely outcomes, to learn, to forget and later remember, etc., etc., etc.
And that, Mr. Gaulin, is why you are treated with scorn and contempt wherever you go. Or at least wherever you go that they deign to even take note of you.
|