Luke, I am your father CHANGED, to NO, I am your father......

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You think you are sounding smart, but you are coming off foolish. Argument from silence is related to argument from ignorance. You just picked the wrong link on google. I see you had to google it, as your definition is from the very first link. How sad. Even the definition you linked proves me right and you wrong. You are basing that it could be true on the absence of statements that it isn't true. Surely you see that? Surely you do?

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.

Edit:

How can you know it doesn't exist if you have no knowledge of it? According to your "logic", half the things we take for granted now shouldn't exist.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. More logical fallacies from the team who lacks all logic and reason.

a reply to: raymundoko

You are the one who said "argument form silence". And yes I don't have the official list of all logical fallacies memorised, and neither do you obviously sine you didn't even get it right.

And you still don't, this is what it entails,

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)

I did not do such a thing, I said that we can't know if it is true or not, and therefore you can't say it is not possible, which is basically the same as this,

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.

So the "argument of ignorance" fallacy is actually a fallacy because it excludes the exact same standpoint I was taking, of which you said it was a logical fallacy.


So who is looking foolish. Jeez.....guy. Fail much?

a reply to: raymundoko

The burden of proof is on you, not me. More logical fallacies from the team who lacks all logic and reason.

What burden? I am not trying to prove anything. Nothing about this can be proven. All I said is that you have no way of knowing anything about the possibility of shifting timelines and paralel universes which is a factual statement not requiring any proof.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Only it does require proof if you are saying everyone with the physical evidence is wrong...

a reply to: raymundoko

Can you stay on topic and stop belittling and talking down to everyone now please?

Quit the name calling.

The more you degrade others, the weaker it makes your arguments.

a reply to: hidingthistime

Accusing me of belitting you doesn't make it true. Correcting people can indeed come off as talking down to them, but such is life. The ME crew is extremely defensive and seems to constantly dig themselves into holes they have trouble getting out of.

Edit:

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Did you really just call a logical fallacy a logical fallacy? Jesus.

a reply to: raymundoko

So when did I say that?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Dude...Dude. Dude!

If I need to explain your own posts to you let me know.

a reply to: raymundoko

Did you really just call a logical fallacy a logical fallacy? Jesus.

That is your repsonse to that post?

Don't want to admit that the fallacy stuff blew up in your face or do you really still not get what you are talking about?

a reply to: raymundoko

So where did I say that your memories are wrong or that the physical evidence of them is wrong?

Again, all I said is that you can't exclude the possibility of the ME being real.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Yes you can. There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

If you think that blew up in my face then the issue here is your lack of understanding what a fallacy is...the problem does not lie with me.

Another Reminder...

An opposing viewpoint is NOT a valid reason to complain & It takes two to tango
Quit the bickering....it detracts from the discussion!!!!

With that in mind, please continue this discussion, and remember You are responsible for your own posts. and
Community Announcement re: Decorum

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: raymundoko

It completely blew up in your face. First you refered to the "argument of silence"fallacy which did not apply. Then you tried the "argument of ignorance" fallacy of which the definition is,

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)

This is exactly what you are doing......you just did it again,

There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.

So even though you posted these qoutes yourself, you then proceed to do the exact thing it describes, the thing you accuse me off.


And why is the "argument of silence" fallacy a fallacy? Because,

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.

Because it excludes the very standpoint that I took, and of which you said it was the logical fallacy, namely that we don't have the knowledge and info to make such a judgement.

The "argument of ignorance" fallacy applies to you completely.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

So tell me, where is your proof? Where is your physical proof? I am not saying that you have no proof as my opinion, that is a fact. It's not my fault your are confused by your own logic.

We DO have the tools to determine the right path. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

If you think it was Luke, physical evidence disagrees, you are wrong.

If you think it was Berenstein, physical evidence disagrees, you are wrong.

If you think it the freaking human anatomy is different, physical evidence disagrees, you are wrong.

Those are all basic concepts.

Now, for you to come in here and say "but, but, ME, Tampering, Merging worlds" you need some PROOF that that is a possibility. Saying that because science doesn't explicitly state "that's impossible" (which btw science will never do) it leaves the window open for your perceived possibility is the mother of all flaws in logic. Right now the burden of proof is on you, and the only "proof" anyone has provided is faulty memories. Of those, the people who have the faulty memories don't even agree on which faulty memory is correct.

a reply to: raymundoko

Proof of what? I just said that I am not trying to prove anything.

Why don't you repsond on your usage of the "argument of ignorance" fallacy,

There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.

By your own definition,

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (OR VICE VERSA)

There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.

Logical fallacy! Argument of ignorance!

a reply to: raymundoko

We DO have the tools to determine the right path. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. If you think it was Luke, physical evidence disagrees, you are wrong.

Still not able to compute.....

The theory is that I shifted to your universe, so off course everything has always been like you remember here, and there is no physical proof for me to prove that I shifted. This is the nature of the theory but skeptics just can't seem to grasp this, like they have no ability to view all perspectives.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You know we can see your post history right? If you believe your viewpoint is real, and you are looking for others who share your viewpoint, then you are trying to prove your viewpoint. You just happen to be doing it via confirmation bias.