"You can't prove god doesn't exist!"

"I don't see how all this could have come about without a god!"

 

These are two similar kinds of arguments that share a common problem. They assume that the answer given must be correct, because no alternative has been demonstrated, or is apparrent. However, this is precisely backwards. When someone is making a claim, such as the existence of god, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is not on the other person to disprove your claim. Otherwise, everyone would have to accept as true any unfalsifiable claim.

 

With the argument from ignorance, "you can't prove me wrong" a false dichotomy is set up where there are only two possibilities: either the opponent can come up with a different explanation, or else the claim is correct. This excludes two other possible and important possibilities:

 

• There could be another explanation, but the evidence to demonstrate it has not yet been found.

• There could be another explanation, which is true but impossible to demonstrate

 

If either of these are the case, which you have not excluded, then your claim is false. So you have not demonstrated your claim is true. Instead, you should find positive evidence and arguments to back up your claim.

 

The second form of the argument, "I can't imagine how this could happen except my way" is invalid because facts do not depend on whether or not you can conceive of them. There may well be other explanations you simply haven't thought of, and you have not excluded them.