(June 3, 2010 at 12:04 am)padraic Wrote:Quote:P.S. - That chestnut is wrong.
You saying so does not make it so.
The assertion is a chestnut (cliche) precisely because it IS true. It is an accepted part of formal logic. The fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence is called 'argument from ignorance'.
Of course you may invent new rules of logic if you wish,but don't be surprised if they are not universally accepted.
It may be said; There is no evidence that Jesus existed, and that therefore I do not believe that he existed. However,to argue there is no evidence Jesus existed therefore he did not exist, is a logical fallacy.
I also consider the argument a red herring, as I make a clear distinction between a possibly historical Jesus and the mythical figure of the New Testament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wiki:
Quote:The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen (often opposite) hypothesis is therefore considered likely or proven.
* Something is currently unexplained, or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) considered true, and the opposite position is considered likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
And exactly what is the distinction between the historical and mythical figure?
