New definition (apparently) Argument from ignorance

[Termin]

Because I could be wrong, here's the scenario

If someone makes the claim

Person A  "God exists, because I say so"
Person B " Can you provide evidence ? "
Person A " No I can't"
Person B  "I can't accept you assertion without evidence"

According to a person I am having a discussion with, Person B is making an argument from ignorance by allegedly  stating  god doesn't exist.

As I see it, and have tried to explain it, not only has Person B not stated god does not exist, but hasn't even made an argument, they simply stated they can't accept an assertion without evidence, since that's not an argument, then an argument from ignorance cannot possible be made.

Am I missing something ?

[PickelledEggs]

I don't know what the new definition, you are talking about is... but I like the "I can't accept your assertion without evidence" line.

That's to-the-point as it gets.

[TomFoolery]

According to a person I am having a discussion with, Person B is making an argument from ignorance by stating god doesn't exist.

Person A is shifting the burden of proof without explicitly stating so. They make the claim, you ask for evidence, and they won't/can't provide it.

[Termin]

I don't know what the new definition, you are talking about is... but I like the "I can't accept your assertion without evidence" line.

That's to-the-point as it gets.

The new definition was just me being sarcastic about the others person claim that since they cannot accept the argument without evidence, they are automatically stating the opposing view is correct without providing evidence and is therefor making an argument from ignorance.

[SGOS]

The argument from ignorance usually follows the form, "I don't know how else to explain that.  Therefore, God (or some other arbitrary explanation)."  I don't think that's what's happening here.  Person A might think B is saying, "I don't know.  Therefore, there can't be a God."  But from what is written:

B is not offering an argument.
B is not claiming ignorance.

There is no argument.
There is no claim of ignorance.
Therefore, there is no argument from ignorance.

There is no argument from anything.

[JBCuzISaidSo]

Yuck. I've had this conversation too many times, only usually person A offers up 'evidence' as things they take as evidence ('how can you not see god made me eat that bee so the allergic guy didn't get stung??!!??') that are just stupid.

For far too many believers, the simple act of stating "I'm going to need a Jesus Polaroid", or "In your very strong opinion, god is true. But that's all it is, a very strong opinion", is a personal attack on them, so yeah they get bitchy. The old argument that you can't prove a god DOESN'T exist is their ego attempting to right itself after a logical blow.

Tell them you normally charge $250 an hour for an ego blow-job and be on your merry way.

[surreptitious57]

In the OP it is person A that is actually making the argument from ignorance. For they are referencing a position with zero
evidence to substantiate it. It is also an argument from emotion so two logical fallacies for the price of one. It is important
to realise the difference between logical reasoning and emotional reasoning. And equally so to understand that they do not
have the same validity. Logical reasoning is axiomatic by definition and so is objectively true where as emotional reasoning
has no such restrictions for it only has to be subjectively true so is less sound in principle. And is invariably objectively false

[Baruch]

Surreptitious57 ... I would kind of disagree.  One can have a logical deduction, but the conclusion will be false, if the premise is false.  The conclusion can't even be accidentally true.  If the premise is false, and the deduction is illogical, then the conclusion might be false or might be true.  We will take the "emotional reasoning" as an illogical deduction in this case.

There are three kinds of deductions ... I am assuming "contingent" here.  Tautological means the conclusion is true by definition, not by evidence.  Contradictory means the conclusion is false by definition, not by evidence.  Contingent means that given a true premise and a logical deduction, then the conclusion is true.

[surreptitious57]

Now deductive reasoning is superior to inductive reasoning as its premises are definitely true as opposed to probably true
Science is primarily an inductive discipline as it uses evidence to validate its hypotheses. While mathematics is primarily a
deductive discipline as it uses proof to validate its premises. Syllogisms also use deductive reasoning just like mathematics
They are axiomatically deductive systems of logic too. So even if a syllogism is false as long as it is logically consistent then
it is still valid. So if the first and second premises are logically consistent with each other and the second and third premises
are logically consistent with each other then the syllogism is sound in principle. Regardless of what the premises actually are

[Baruch]

Socrates is a Persian
All Persians are gay
Therefore Socrates was gay.

The deduction is correct.  The conclusion is correct, but both premises are false.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Socrates is a Persian
All Persians are gay
Therefore Socrates was gay.

The deduction is correct.  The conclusion is correct, but both premises are false.

A point put more succinctly as "Garbage In, Garbage Out." No problem solving technique will give you a correct conclusion if you feed it false assumptions and/or bogus data. You say this as if we're not savvy to this.

[josephpalazzo]

Socrates is a Persian
All Persians are gay
Therefore Socrates was gay.

The deduction is correct.  The conclusion is correct, but both premises are false.

Basically the rule is: If you deny the premises, you deny the conclusion. OTOH, if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion. For theists who believe in God, they will accept a premise containing God, such: if God is all-mighty then... while atheists will deny such premises.

[Baruch]

A point put more succinctly as "Garbage In, Garbage Out." No problem solving technique will give you a correct conclusion if you feed it false assumptions and/or bogus data. You say this as if we're not savvy to this.

You don't need correction perhaps.  Josephpalazzo doesn't need correction perhaps.  But Surreptitiou57 was a bit confused.  People who have had no formal study of even elementary logic, go all google eyed at Spock and his logic.

[Termin]

You don't need correction perhaps.  Josephpalazzo doesn't need correction perhaps.  But Surreptitiou57 was a bit confused.  People who have had no formal study of even elementary logic, go all google eyed at Spock and his logic.

  Be careful how you speak of Spock . . .  :)

[Hakurei Reimu]

You don't need correction perhaps.  Josephpalazzo doesn't need correction perhaps.  But Surreptitiou57 was a bit confused.

How? Surreptitiou57 specifically said that "even if a syllogism is false as long as it is logically consistent then it is still valid." Please note the word he used: valid. Validity refers to an argument with a correct logical structure, but says nothing about whether or not the logical structure leads to a conclusion that is true, owing to the question of the truth of the premises.

Furthermore, Sur was comparing logical reasoning to emotional reasoning. All else being equal, 'logical reasoning' dominates 'emotional reasoning.' For either form of 'reasoning,' it is a complete pot-shot which if either produces a right conclusion if the premises are false â€" one is just as likely to be correct as the other. However, if the premises are true, then the logical reasoning will always produce a conclusion that is true, whereas with emotional reasoning it's still a toss-up.