Argument From Ignorance of Existance
Offline My Muslim friend hit me with this today, and I know where he's going with it:
"Let�s say hypothetically you and I were the only human beings on earth. The only ones. Lets say you resided somewhere in South America, and I resided somewhere in Europe. We�ve never experienced each other existence. Because you�ve never saw me, does that mean I don�t exist? I may not exist in your mind, but I do exist and you perceive it not. Now it would be rational for you to think I didn�t exist, and it would be rational for me to think you did exist. Do you agree?"
The problem is, is I can't form the proper argument against it. I see the problems with it, but any answer I reply with sounds like babble, since I just... can't... forumulate... the... answer... Can anyone articulate a response to it that isn't long-winded? Mine are.
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
- Login to post comments
Keep in mind that I know how to reply to this exact question. I just know he's about to pull God into this and that's the answer I can't articulate. Basically:
1) Yes, it would be irrational for us to believe there's other humans, since we've never seen one, nor any signs.
2) Then he'll say, "But that second person does exist. So how do you know that the same doesn't go for that one person and God?"
Hrm...
Edit: I took a calculated risk and walked into his trap. Cuz I can still get him with his own game I believe. The debate
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
Complex Question?
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/cq.htm
Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that believing one does not mean that you have to believe the other.
He gives a story we must assume is true for the sake of argument yet his second question is an argument from ignorance. A leading question.
Almost Question begging? http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/begging.htm
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
He askes how do we know? We can't know. It is still an argument from ignorance. Not only that but his example is more plausible than God isn't it?
Am I right?
Your muslim friend insists that it's cool to draw conclusions in an inconclusive scenario. If there's no way of telling if this or that is the case, it's just peachy to conveniently believe one of them to be true. That's what he's pretty much trying to get you to agree with: that it's acceptable to draw premature conclusions. Silly huh?
(Yeah Antifaith this does reek of argument-from-ignorance, though I also lean towards an excluded middle fallacy, because the option to simply refrain from judgement is left out. Some nonsense is messed up on so many levels that there's multiple fallacies being committed at the same time)
The whole 'only two people on different sides of the globe' example offers a whole lot of sillyness to nitpick about, so where are the parents?, couldn't a human conclude through sound reasoning that the the existence of other humans is at least plausible? Don't bite. Don't allow yourself to get drawn into the smokescreen of a rickety analogy, but focus on the core problem of his argument.
~Let us be reasonable~
You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so.
Excluded middle fallacy. The option to simply refrain from judgement is left out.
Yes. The best we can do is to work with what we know. Whith what we are aware of. It is not practical to have a confidence with out evidences, but it is not unreasonable to investigate or test our gut feelings. Yet the man did not give anything for confidence. Nothing.
It is hard to articulate what is wrong with that mans traps.
Thank you very much Jutter.