Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

When you say information can't travel faster than the speed of light is that an argument from ignorance?

Negative Esquilax it is not. It is a fact of reality.

When you make a blanket generalization about the entirety of a thing without knowing every variable of the thing, then yes, what you are using is an argument from ignorance. What you're saying is that your experience of a thing leads you to believe that this is true, and hence it definitely is true across every part of it, even the parts you are ignorant of.

When it is said that quantum randomness cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables it is not an argument from ignorance but something accepted scientifically as a fact of reality.

Quantum mechanics might be wrong. Bells theorem might be wrong. But if both are true(and they are accepted to be true), then it is a fact that some observations cannot EVER be explained by hidden local physical variables.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that the science on this does not say "cannot EVER be explained" by anything at all. That's because scientists aren't in the business of making unsupported assertions, like ideologically motivated theist fallacy-makers are.

That's the way the world is.....Get over it and move on. Droning "argument of ignorance....or God of the gaps" isn't going to change reality.

Gosh, that's such a blow to my position! "If I'm right, then I'm right!"

Heywood, we've talked before, and you've never once been able to recognize the fallacies in your arguments, so I'm under no illusions that you'll suddenly understand this one, but getting bitchy over your inability to comprehensively demonstrate a single facet of your assertions just makes you look like a spoiled toddler.

You're failing here Esquilax.

You are claiming that I am saying that my proposition must be right because Quantum Mechanics and Bells theorem have yet to be proven wrong.

But I have never said that. If did, then you should be able to find a quote of me saying that.

In fact I have said Bells theorem or Quantum mechanics could be wrong. I even tendered Bohmian mechanics(which is completely deterministic) as an alternative to Quantum mechanics.

Either you just aren't following along or you're so incredulous in your belief that any suggestion of a supernatural element must be God of the Gaps or Argument of Ignorance that you subconsciously cherry pick only parts of the discussion.

Edit: If you want to keep Quantum Mechanics and Bell's theorem but eliminate quantum randomness, you can always accept Hugh Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as an explanation for the observance of randomness.....that's another possibility.