(October 26, 2011 at 8:52 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: And this logical fallacy is called the argument from ignorance (mingled in with shifting the burden of proof.
Nope, no argument from ignorance here, I made a claim, I backed it up and you helped me back it up. Not sure why you are still appealing to logic though, you have not given account for it.
Quote: Another example: I can account for the laws of logic because prancing invisible unicorns tell me to use logic. You can't prove invisible prancing unicorns don't exist and so I must be right.
Are these unicorns you believe in supernatural or natural?
(October 26, 2011 at 10:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh, and to add, the logical fallacy also used here is Argumentum Ad Neuseum, where you just keep repeating the same argument that's already been addressed. In fact, I did account for why I use logic (basically, "I want to" and "I like the results"). Meanwhile, your account "GodWillsIt" does nothing to explain why you use logic, for reasons discussed ad neuseum.
Nope, the argumentum ad nauseum is when a person repeats an argument that has been refuted or shown to be invalid over and over hoping it sticks. My argument has not been shown to be invalid or unsound (in fact you have helped demonstrate its merit), so I will keep repeating it until someone can refute it. Again, why are you appealing to something you have not given account for (logic)?
