(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Answering the Questions

People create websites or books to list questions. You’ll find “questions for atheists,” “questions for theists,” “questions for evolutionists,” and “questions for creationists.” Other people create websites or books to list answers to questions. You’ll find the search engines, which are part of the great false prophet system, weighting their searches to favor the atheists and evolutionists. Those aren’t the only subjects for ad ignorantiam question fallacies. They’re just a few examples.

Often, a well-executed fallacy can change people’s minds. And, since the people changed their minds based on fallacies, they’re more likely to move from truth to falsehood.

We might buy books or go to websites to get the answers to ad-ignorantiam-question fallacies. And we can find some good answers out there. We can often find many answers to a single question. The answers aren’t usually absolute or final. Often the argument-from-ignorance fallacy asks Christians to speculate about what God hasn’t fully revealed. They ask us to go beyond what God has revealed. Therefore, the answers go beyond what God has revealed. They’re speculative. When our answers go beyond what God has revealed, they may be feasible, but they necessarily add to God’s words or diminish God’s words. What God has revealed is enough. Sometimes, the ad ignorantiam question is so vague we don’t know what the question is. We may be tempted to answer a vague question. However, we do better if we clarify what the question is.

Does it do any good? Maybe. Some say if we don’t answer the question, it means a false claim is true. And yet, whatever answer we give, the person asking the question is likely to reject our answer. We’re trying to defend the truth. However, debates aren’t ways of finding truth. Debates are ways of winning and making others lose.

Persuaders use ad ignorantiam questions to prove points, but their questions can’t prove any point. As stated, reality doesn’t change if we don’t answer a certain question.

(end quote)

Here’s another way ungodly thinkers use the ad ignorantiam fallacy as a smokescreen. With Christ, we don’t need fallacies. Without Christ, people make up stuff and use smokescreen fallacies to deceive you.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“Here’s an apparent conflict. Explain it.”

The persuader claims a conflict exists and your inability to prove no conflict exists either proves some point or disproves the point. Someone may claim a conflict exists in the Bible or a story told by scientists. Someone may claim there’s a conflict between something about God and what we can see. Claims of the conflicts in the Bible always depend on at least one assumption or other made-up stuff. Theologians, scientists, and experts often have real conflicts in their thinking, but that doesn’t prove them wrong. You can’t know the truth without God. God can reveal truth. What God reveals is true. God shows us partial revelation, which means you won’t be able to answer every question.

(end quote)

Today’s quote is looking at another way ungodly thinkers use the ad ignorantiam question fallacy. There are good reasons to ask someone how their idea or claim works. It can help you understand their claim. It can’t tell you whether their claim is true or false. It can’t prove anything. We know many things because God reveals them to us. For instance, we know the Bible is God’s Word without error, and we may know some truths about that fact. However, we can’t answer every question about the Bible unless God reveals the answers to us.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“How does it work?”

With the “how does it work” ad ignorantiam question, here’s the claim. “If you don’t know how something works, that proves or disproves some point.” That claim is false. If you don’t know the answer to a question, that just proves you don’t know the answer. It doesn’t prove anything else. A persuader may ask exactly how God created the heavens and the earth or how the first life got started. They may ask whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics was enforced in the Garden of Eden or what existed before a supposed big bang created everything from nothing. God hasn’t revealed everything. Speculation is just putting yourself on the same level as the ungodly persuader since speculation is making up stuff. Can your lack of knowledge have any effect on reality? No. That’s why ad ignorantiam is a fallacy.

(end quote)

Today’s quote is from a section about how people try to use ignorance to prove their points. If God didn’t exist, you would have to be all-knowing to know anything. You would have to know everything about everything or you could be wrong about anything. However, when God reveals Himself to you, He begins to lead and teach you. He reveals that He knows everything and He can’t lie. What He reveals to you is true. If your fallen mind adds some error to what God has shown you, God will correct you as you come to Him in humility and open your mind to His correction.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

“Prove me wrong.”

Here, the persuader presents his or her pet theory. The theory may be theological, scientific, political, or anything else. After presenting the pet theory, which may be as short as a single sentence, the persuader says, “Prove me wrong.” The persuader implies the claim is true unless you prove the persuader wrong. The persuader may imply or openly express the “prove me wrong” part. When anyone makes a bare claim, that person implies the claim is true unless someone can prove it’s false. Sometimes, a persuader will make the claim and then say, “Prove me wrong.” Sometimes, the persuader will state the fallacy plainly by saying, “Unless you can disprove my claim, my claim stands.” You might choose not to play the game. You don’t want to argue. The persuader then thinks your lack of a willingness to argue “proves” the pet theory. If you do engage, the persuader rejects anything you say and uses that rejection as “proof” of the pet theory. If you say the theory is speculative, the persuader sees that as “proof” of the pet theory.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Christians and non-Christians alike commit the ad-ignorantiam-question fallacy. This fallacy never comes from godly thinking, however. Godly thinking doesn’t commit fallacies since godly thinking begins with truth and doesn’t add to or take away from the truth. In godly thinking, the truth comes from God by divine revelation.

Here’s the problem with the ad-ignorantiam-question fallacy. Ignorance of the answer cannot possibly affect reality. Ignorance of the answer cannot possibly prove anything true or false.

(end quote)

Some people don’t want God to exist. When they ask you a question, they don’t want an answer. They want to convince you that God doesn’t exist. They’ve rationalized their unbelief. Every rationalization that supports false ideas like atheism, agnostism, or naturalism is based on made-up stuff.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

There are three elements to an ad ignorantiam question fallacy:

1. A persuader asks a question.
2. The intent of the question is to prove (or disprove) a certain claim.
3. The persuader implies that the claim is proven (or disproven) if the other person won’t or can’t answer.

Other fallacies can enter. For instance, a persuader may state the question in vague terms. The question may miss the point. Some persuaders brace themselves to reject any answer they receive. Most of the time, the persuader using an ad-ignorantiam-question fallacy isn’t looking for truth because they think they have the truth.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

While Christian thinking is sometimes baseless, ungodly thinking is always baseless. Christian thinking is baseless when a Christian slips into godless thinking. We Christians aren’t always following the leading of the Holy Spirit. We ought to be, but we aren’t. Whatever the Holy Spirit didn’t initiate and say through us is godless.

There’s nothing wrong with asking a question to point out that an ungodly claim has no foundation in truth. Just don’t think your questions disprove the ungodly claims. You can use truth to disprove a false claim. Only truth can prove or disprove any claim. Truth only comes from Christ. Even though an ungodly thinker cannot possibly answer your question rationally, that doesn’t prove the ungodly thinker’s claim is false. It just proves the ungodly thinker can’t give a sound reason for making the claim. The unbeliever is making an unsupported claim or a claim supported by smokescreen fallacies.

(end quote)

All truth is in Christ. No truth is outside of Christ. That’s why ungodly thinkers depend on bare claims and arguments from ignorance.

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Ignorance as a Way of Knowing

How could ignorance be a way of knowing? You might be surprised that ignorance is one of the most common ways persuaders use when they’re trying to know truth. Of course, ignorance doesn’t work for finding truth.

The fallacy is “ad ignorantiam.” It’s also known as an “argument from ignorance.” Many people use this fallacy. Argument-from-ignorance fallacies deceive those who use them and make them believe they have obtained knowledge when they haven’t. Argument-from-ignorance fallacies rank right up with the fallacy of making bare claims as a supposed way of knowing. Often, the argument from ignorance works in the form of an “ad ignorantiam question.” If you go out to the discussion groups, you’ll find two methods of reasoning at work in almost all cases. The first is the bare claim, and the second is the ad ignorantiam question. Often, the ad ignorantiam questions are also loaded questions.

Typical Ad Ignorantiam Questions

“Why isn’t there any evidence for God’s existence?”

“If God is good, why is there evil in the world?”

There is evidence for God’s existence, so the first question is loaded. It’s also an ad ignorantiam question. With both questions, when you answer the question, the person asking the question won’t accept any answer you give. The questions aren’t real questions. They’re statements disguised as questions. They make a claim. The unsound logic is: “If you can’t answer this question, my claim is true.”

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Suppose I feel the word “presupposition” has more substance than being just made-up stuff, and I tell an unbeliever I base my reasoning on my presuppositions. Unfortunately, the unbeliever hears “made-up stuff” when I say “presuppositions.” Why should the unbeliever accept my made-up stuff as any better than his or her made-up stuff? The term “presupposition” can give the illusion truth has no more basis than made-up stuff.

It’s very effective to point out how disbelievers base their conclusions on presuppositions. They based their conclusions on made-up stuff. Ungodly thinking has no other choice. Once we point that out, we can show the difference between presuppositions and divine revelation.

Anyway, we ought to be clear that we don’t believe the Bible is God’s word simply because we’re pretending it is. We don’t believe the Bible is God’s word based on circumstantial evidence, which is always inconclusive. We believe the Bible is God’s word because the voice of the absolute God tells us the Bible is His word. Divine revelation is absolute truth. What God says is absolute. Divine leading requires a real relationship with Christ though.

(end quote)