| Argument from the Negative |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Omission
>
Argument from the Negative
|
Logical Fallacy of Argument from the NegativeThe Logical Fallacy of Argument from the Negative occurs when someone asserts that if one conclusion is false, then another one is automatically true. This is very similar to the black-and-white fallacy. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument from the NegativeThe Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story versus the Creation-Flood account are often characterized as this type of argument. Some of those in favor of the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story sometime think that if they can poke a hole in the Creation-Flood account (the attempt is to prove it scientifically impossible) then the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story is true by default. Most of them think that there is no God by default or that the Bible can be deconstructed by default. On the other hand, some of those in favor of the Creation-Flood account sometime think that if they can poke a hole in the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story (the attempt is to prove it scientifically impossible) then the Creation-Flood account is true by default. The Creation-Flood account is based on Divine revelation. There is something called Creation science, where scientific observations are used to make theories that go beyond what God says through Scripture. Science does a very poor job of conclusively proving anything. Its real application is in the pragmatic, the determining of what works in the present, not the theoretical or for determining what happened in the past. The Scripture doesn't really say that much. It says that God created the Heavens, Earth, seas, and everything in them in six days. He created Adam on day six of Creation. God speaks through the geneologies, telling us that there are about 4,000 years between Adam and Christ. God tells us that there was a giant flood that covered the entire Earth, including the mountain tops. And God gives us some more details as well. Anyone who goes beyond these Divine revelations should hold onto their speculations very loosely. Yet, it is interesting to know that there are answers to some on the bold statements of those who are convinced of the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story is based on assumptions and stories. There is some science involved on the outside of the assumptions and stories, but it is basically a very complex story, actually a series of stories, that tries to explain Creation without the Creator. Stories and assumptions can never be shown to be true. They are just stories and assumptions. This is part of the reason that the people who believe the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story try to find scientific evidence that would eliminate the Creation-Flood account. Although, they are unable to find any evidence like that.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionStacking the Deck Ambiguity Effect McNamara Fallacy Head in the Sand Suppression of the Agent Fading Affect Bias Unteachable Selective Refutation A-Priorism Audiatur Et Altera Pars Ignoring Historical Example Overlooking Secondary Consequences Uncontrolled Factors Missing Link Moving the Goal Posts Gravity Game Demanding Impossible Evidence Unfalsifiability / Untestibility Invincible Ignorance Argument from Ignorance Ad Ignorantiam Question God of the Gaps Argument from Silence No True Scotsman No True Scientist Fallacy of Opposition Frozen Abstraction Falsified Inductive Generalization Accident Fallacy Reverse Accident Best-in-Field Abductive Fallacy Denialism Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Very Simple Answer Reductionism Taboo Fallacy Recently Viewed |
