Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

III. The uses of the ad ignorantiam in rhetoric and persuasion are often similar to the technique of "raising doubts." E.g., suppose you wanted to convince a police officer not to give you a ticket by using this technique.
"I'm sure you know how unreliable radar detectors are. Why, I saw an a news program a tree was timed at 50 mph, and Florida, at one time, threw out such evidence in court. I certainly wasn't going that fast. Some other driver must have sent back that erroneous signal. You probably timed the car passing me which looked like mine."

Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.
Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!
Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

I've already proved it several times ... It's a red herring because the real issue is that your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to that presented by scientists for the scientific, magic-free worldview.

     1. You haven't proved seriously anything so far. The circumstance that you are continuously presenting some random references, governed by the laws of probability, does not necessarily mean that you are making any proves.

     2. The real issue is not whether God could be placed in the space of the unknowable or not - the real issue is that nothing could be placed there. The problem is that no claims presenting themselves as science and meta-knowledge could be placed there just so, out of Nowhere, and out of Nothing.

     3. If you are fan of the ontology this implicitly suggests that you are fan of the 'branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being' (Oxford dictionary), from where automatically follows that you accept the existence of the metaphysics (you deeply and convincingly believe that something outside the physical explanation of the world is absolutely possible to exist), and that you accept the metaphysics as possible understanding of the world (incl. that something can exist outside the laws of physics - like outside the Time, for example), from where automatically follows that the Big Bang could not be 'the first and still the best' for the Universe most probably has always existed (within or outside the component of the Time, as we know it). Actually what can you tell (without references) about the Time?
     Why don't you simply confess that the uncritical trusting and assigning beliefs to videos and pseudo-scientific presentations of any kind based on suspicious credentials ... and justification, is not an idea of first brilliance for the purposes of knowledge acquisition, for in that way one may end up with a 'positive mutation' of references in the place of non-contradictory knowledge with ability to make personal reasoning and interoperability to communicate it.

I 'made a prove' that you're a willfully blinkered denialist.

And yet you're trying to wedge your "personal 45% alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps in there anyway.

1. You deny the alternative possible explanations of the red shift ... not to speak that you don't understand the red shift in the first place.

That doesn't even make any sense.

You deny my explanation because you don't understand the explanation I deny.

In order to claim that this is the case you will have to reject all the other possibilities that you will never be able to do as you perhaps deny them, and to you those other possible explanations of the red shift do not exist.

     1. You deny the alternative possible explanations of the red shift (your favorite example with cherry-picked explanation) ... not to speak that you don't understand the red shift in the first place, and why some people claim the the red shift is an indication of an expanding Universe ... with acceleration. Can you explain that in 10 words?
     2. You deny all the valid and acceptable evidences that are different from direct observations and publications with some credentials. You don't believe to truth values, you don't rely on your own methods for verification and validation of information and claims for the purposes of knowledge acquisition - you believe to certificates, without even know what exactly is standing behind them. No wonder that you believe 100% to the climate change deniers as well.
     3. You deny all the processed for knowledge acquisition except for simulating knowledge by some irrelevant references, made at random.
     4. You are denying to listen to any form of communication. Actually you are not making a discussion - you are simulating discussion and interest, and at the same time continue the process some confirmation bias of some mind-blowing paranoic hypotheses about some God-of-the-Gaps and Denialism taken at random from other type of discussions.

The practice show that to people like you no numbers should be given - ever, for they cannot see anything except for the number itself.
     So and so you have become so fond of that % values and cannot brake away from them, the correct approach would be to announce your % of understanding of the assumptions for the creation (if has been created) of the Universe - how much do you believe in a) The Big Bang has ever happened; b) Even if happened, has created anything at all and c) reverted processes in physics are possible.
     After that - how much do you believe that the Universe has always existed and that all these performances with the standard model are out of subject. How much % do you believe that intelligence (our for example), life, and messages can appear 3000 years before the events themselves that they are concerning? The sum of all believes here should be 100% (the whole case of the assumptions).
     In the event you believe 100% in the Big Bang 'theory', how exactly do you exclude all the other hypotheses ... and why?
     It is obvious that you have no interest in the ontology of the Universe and that you mistake our origin (the creation) with our destiny (the climate change) - why don't you simply open a thread on the climate change to end up with your concerns (and with your favorite example for classical denialism)?

Wrong on all accounts and, like Parados pointed out, these are just more red herrings.

Another red herring? I repeat: Who gives a ****?

Red herring yet again? I've repeated numerous times my claim:Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to the scientists' arguments for their models.

Some people are not capable of accepting FACTS.

Gods exist in people's mind

... but they can't produce anything tangible that proves their god exists.

FBM wrote:

Red herring yet again? I've repeated numerous times my claim:Your argument for your alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps sucks balls compared to the scientists' arguments for their models.

     ... and my claim is that you don't have the IQ capacity to make such an assessment.