(a.k.a. Argument by Question Fallacy)
A question that implies an argument from ignorance
Examples:
If you can’t answer my question, then I’m right, and you’re wrong.
If you can’t show it, then you don’t know it. ~ Aron Ra
Aron says that you only can know what you prove to him to his satisfaction. That would mean that you aren’t feeling pain when you’re feeling pain. You aren’t having anxiety when you’re having anxiety. You aren’t remembering a past event when you remember it. You aren’t hearing the voice of God when He speaks to you. Aron claims that you can’t know any of these unless you can prove it to him to his satisfaction. That’s irrational. Truth is truth regardless of who receives it and who rejects it.
You can try this yourself, everybody. I mean, I don’t mean to be mean to trees, but get a sapling and put it under water for a year. It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds. They just won’t make it. So how could these trees be that old if the earth is only 4,000 years old? ~ Bill Nye
Bill Nye probably meant to ask how the trees could have survived the global Flood of Genesis, and many possible ways exist. He was trying to prove that trees disprove that the Genesis Flood happened, but it looks like he got two different thoughts confused. One thought is that trees couldn’t have survived the Flood. The other thought is that the trees were older than the Genesis Flood, which took place about 4,300 years ago around 2,300 BC.
Scientists based the calculations of the age of some trees on assumptions—made-up stuff, and Bill presented the results of those calculations as if scientists had calculated the ages rationally. The reality is that we don’t have a way to know that those trees are that old.
So Bill Nye argues that he doesn’t know how it happened, and he bets that Ken Ham can’t think of a way it could have happened. So, based on his lack of knowledge, he claims that the Bible has an error. However, Ken’s, Bill Nye’s, or anyone else’s knowledge or lack of it doesn’t affect reality. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. The questions that Bill Nye is asking would fall into the class of fallacies known as ad ignorantiam. The persuader asks a question or a long series of questions. If the other person can’t answer them or doesn’t have enough time to answer them, the persuader claims victory. In the quote above, Bill implies that Ken must answer his question, or if he doesn’t answer to Bill’s satisfaction, a young earth, a global Flood, and Creation are all impossible. These fallacies can sound convincing. However, they’re irrational. Just because Bill Nye the “science guy” doesn’t know something doesn’t mean that thing is impossible.
It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds. ~ Bill Nye
Bill states what he hasn’t proved as if it were a fact. The Ark could have carried seeds as one of the main food sources. The global Flood would create floating islands of debris, which would be huge mats of vegetation. These would have carried many seeds out of the water. Most importantly, Bill is assuming naturalism and basing his whole argument on this assumption. He bases his “proof” on naturalism but never mentions it. So he commits a form of hysteron proteron. He “proves” his case with the unproven assumption of naturalism as proof.
Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark. ~ http://creation.com/how-did-fish-and-plants-survive-the-genesis-flood
If we don’t answer a question, we don’t change reality by not answering. That’s why we can’t prove anything true or false based on a person’s inability to answer a question. In other words, no one’s lack of ability to answer a question has any impact on what really exists. And yet, countless TV shows and movies present this as proof positive for whatever the show’s producer is trying to sell. They create plots where the hero asks a question, and the person who is supposed to be wrong can’t answer. This story is presented as proof by innuendo for whatever the show’s producer is peddling. It doesn’t prove a thing, but it does brainwash many of those who watch the show.
Here’s another ad ignorantiam question:
So you say that you know God created the universe because you know Jesus Christ and He revealed it to you? Well then tell me exactly how the physics worked when God made everything out of nothing.
This question asks us to speculate in the same way ungodly thinkers speculate about how the physics would work if nothing made everything out of nothing. At the same time, this questioner doesn’t direct her question toward the premise or proof, since the proof is that we know Jesus Christ and that He revealed to us that God created the universe. This revelation didn’t make us all-knowing.
On the other hand, it’s not a fallacy to ask, “What makes you think so?” If a person makes a claim but has no basis for the claim, the person can’t rationally support the claim. Consider a Christ-follower who says He knows that God created the universe and everything in it from nothing. A skeptic asks the Christ-follower, “What makes you think so?” If the Christ-follower can’t answer this question rationally, the Christ-follower’s claim is a bare claim. Of course, a person who’s following Christ learned this fact from Christ, so such a person has a rational answer: “I know because Christ has revealed it to me.”
If you claim that Christ revealed something to you, and you can answer how you know Christ revealed that to you, you’re not making a bare claim. Perhaps He revealed it to you by speaking through Scripture. However, your answer wouldn’t be proof for disbelievers, but it’s the proof that Jesus Christ gave you, so it’s not a bare claim. Disbelievers would have to yield their wills to Christ. Then they would also know Christ and His power to reveal. And yet, even then, they wouldn’t automatically receive the complete revelation that Christ had given to you but would have to wait for Christ to reveal the truth to them. Christ doesn’t force Himself on us. Our worldviews and theologies make us resistant to new revelation, and we want to remain as we have always been. We want to maintain those worldviews and theologies, so God only reveals reality to us as we’re willing to yield ourselves and our wills to Him. As long as we’re willing, He’ll keep peeling back the layers of fleshly thinking as He leads us from glory to ever-increasing glory.
However, it’s a fallacy to say, “If you can’t answer all my questions about every part of your claim, that proves you’re wrong.” That would be the ad ignorantiam question fallacy. Even if a person doesn’t have a basis for his or her claim, that doesn’t prove the person wrong. It just shows that the person has no rational proof of the claim and shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. Persuaders often use the ad ignorantiam question fallacy with the assumption correction assumption.
Recent Comments