Just look at the world around you!

[OnceConvinced]

If you look around and can't see there is a creator, I won't try beating it into you!

I came across this tired old attempt at providing proof of God's existance yet again today in the forums here. I just can't understand why people try this one on unbelievers. It shows a definite ignorance of personality types.

I think all Christians should actually learn about personality types, then they would start to understand why there are many people out there who reject the teachings of the bible and why for some, looking at nature is not going to be convincing proof of God. (To say nothing of the fact that looking at nature for many will be convincing proof of evolution)

The reason for this post is I am starting to study the different types of logical fallacies used by Christians. I notice people point them out a lot here and it certainly saves a lot of time if you can just name a logical fallacy rather than having to go into great detail about why the person who is using the fallacy is mistaken.

Just scanning the list I have, I couldn't see one for the above. So what category does it come under?

[Goat]

If you look around and can't see there is a creator, I won't try beating it into you!

I came across this tired old attempt at providing proof of God's existance yet again today in the forums here. I just can't understand why people try this one on unbelievers. It shows a definite ignorance of personality types.

I think all Christians should actually learn about personality types, then they would start to understand why there are many people out there who reject the teachings of the bible and why for some, looking at nature is not going to be convincing proof of God. (To say nothing of the fact that looking at nature for many will be convincing proof of evolution)

The reason for this post is I am starting to study the different types of logical fallacies used by Christians. I notice people point them out a lot here and it certainly saves a lot of time if you can just name a logical fallacy rather than having to go into great detail about why the person who is using the fallacy is mistaken.

Just scanning the list I have, I couldn't see one for the above. So what category does it come under?

Argument from personal incredibility .

[OnceConvinced]

I'm not saying I don't believe you, far from it, but I'm trying to do a google search on that one to see if I can find it in a list, but I'm coming up with nothing.

[nygreenguy]

Argument from personal incredibility .

Incredulity, not incredibility.

lulz.

Also called argument from ignorance.

"I cant see how it could possibly happen, so it didnt"

[OnceConvinced]

Ahha! Now I'm getting stuff coming up on the google search. Thanks guys!

[JoeyKnothead]

If you look around and can't see there is a creator, I won't try beating it into you!

I came across this tired old attempt at providing proof of God's existance yet again today in the forums here. I just can't understand why people try this one on unbelievers. It shows a definite ignorance of personality types.

I think all Christians should actually learn about personality types, then they would start to understand why there are many people out there who reject the teachings of the bible and why for some, looking at nature is not going to be convincing proof of God. (To say nothing of the fact that looking at nature for many will be convincing proof of evolution)

The reason for this post is I am starting to study the different types of logical fallacies used by Christians. I notice people point them out a lot here and it certainly saves a lot of time if you can just name a logical fallacy rather than having to go into great detail about why the person who is using the fallacy is mistaken.

Just scanning the list I have, I couldn't see one for the above. So what category does it come under?

All this stuff I'm writing here is so I can a avoid another one word post, and adhere to the forum rules (which I'm cool by). So hey, how 'bout them Braves? But really I think you should file this one under the heading...

stoopid

But upon further reflection, it goes under the argument of incredulity. Which is funny, because it is such an incredulous claim to begin with.