God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an “explanatory principle.” “God of the gaps” is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of “gaps” being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting “we don’t know yet” as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.
The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2016/02/no-space-for-god-of-the-gaps/
http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/arguments_god_ignorance.html
http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/atheism-of-the-gaps/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btpczTQ-wP0
Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5zkks6mZ6w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxmvYcwPLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2fWehzyOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNyhLASaW0
‘God Did It’ is a Terrible Explanation
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11046
New Theory: God Did It - Edward K. Lankford
https://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/god.html
Didit fallacy
“I can’t explain it” becomes “It can’t be explained” becomes “It has been explained; the gods did it” — or more succinctly — “I don’t know, therefore I do know”. —TheraminTrees
A didit fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when a complex problem is handwaved away by invoking (without reason) the intervention of some powerful entity.
In essence:
Something happened, I’m not sure why.
X did it!
It’s that simple.
All didit fallacies are essentially golden hammers, because they propose a simplistic solution for a range of complex and unrelated problems.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
Golden Hammer Logical Fallacy
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Golden_hammer
Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-ignorance
The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God’s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Videos:
Arguments From Ignorance (1-2)
Matt Dillahunty - The Atheist Experience #654
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08eBv0lfT5E&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Sfs65CTzA&t=44s
Matt Dillahunty On Argument From Ignorance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxy-nUCAozc&t=59s
Atheist Experience-Argument with ignorance again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFEgwk-cFfg&t=31s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNNDkmMrJUs&t=14s
The Atheist Experience - The Argument from Ignorance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H06nVjZqNk&t=30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESV_EuNAWAE
Argument From Ignorance? - The Atheist Experience #748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHqBgamhZ_c
Damn Argument from Ignorance - The Atheist Experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puJKyH_zED0
Neil deGrasse Tyson:The Argument from Ignorance A Sequence NOT Included in In God We Teach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImxObF-BfA
Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg
The Argument from Ignorance - Debunked (The Appeal to Ignorance - Refuted)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2dYW1pSQy8
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html
Open Minds and the Argument from Ignorance
https://www.csicop.org/SI/show/open_minds_and_the_argument_from_ignorance/DeleteRossMay
https://michaelshermer.com/tag/argument-from-ignorance/
https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy-1689122
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html
Argument From Incredulity
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Argument from Incredulity (Fallacy of the Week)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aZMwZsg_0
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
http://youngausskeptics.com/2009/03/ca100-argument-from-incredulity/
Bad Moves: Arguments from incredulity, By Julian Baggini
http://lclane2.net/argumentfromincredulity.html
Ad hoc
Ad hoc is a phrase (literally, “for this”) that describes ideas which are created solely for a specific task and not intended to be generalizable in any way.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
Informal Fallacy
An informal fallacy (also relevance fallacy, conceptual fallacy, soundness fallacy) is an argument that is formally valid but is unsound because of the falsity or irrelevance of one or more of its premises. Informal fallacies are often characterised by the fact that there is a disconnect of some kind between their premises and conclusions. Inappropriate generalisations and argument from ignorance are forms of informal fallacies. These tend to be more numerous and slightly more interesting than formal fallacies.
Informal fallacies are ad hoc, ad hominem, ambiguous, arguments from ignorance, non causa pro causa, circular, special pleading, or weak analogies.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
Divine Fallacy
The divine fallacy is a species of non sequitur reasoning which explains something one does not understand by conjecturing the existence of some unknown force.
This is fallacious since explaining a fact by verbally creating ‘somebody’ responsible for causing it, while no evidence of existence is given, does not explain anything.
http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log83.htm
http://skepdic.com/dvinefal.html
Non Sequitur
Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow”. It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Often examples of non sequitur arguments are hilariously disconnected, but those encountered in the wild can be subtle and may not be easily uncovered. The reason that such arguments are fallacious in logic should be fairly obvious.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur
https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/
Please Join Pages In Our ExposingReligion Network
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/20825271431
The ExposingReligion Research Directory:
http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/16944061808
More Research:
The Burden of Proof and the religious shifting of it. A negative proof, universal negative, and the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You cannot prove a negative? Not so fast. Proving A Negative.
Debunking, Refuting & Answering Top Creationist & Intelligent Design: Questions, Arguments, Myths, Misconceptions, Misinformation, Mischaracterizations, Fallacies, Tactics, Lies, & Fraud
daddy4k liked this ritzyditzywsextratitzy-blog liked this
exposingreligionblog posted this