Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Is this a logical fallacy, and if so, which one?
Claiming that because something does not exist in the present it cannot exist all.
Example: If, in 1930, someone had said that because no nuclear bombs existed at that time, nuclear bombs could never exist.
I was leaning towards personal incredulity, but when I researched personal incredulity it said that the "evidence" in such an argument is that the speaker cannot believe it, whereas in this situation the "evidence" is that the object does not exist in the present. Is it still personal incredulity or something else? Please explain.
3 Answers
- namelessLv 77 years ago
Claiming that because something does not exist in the present it cannot exist all.
~~~ Not necessarily!
Everything exists!
Here! Now!
The only place 'time' exists, is in the imagination!
So, in a way, if something did not exist in the Present, is does not exist!
"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson
- AthenaLv 77 years ago
Of course it is a fallacy.
Claiming you did not write this yesterday does not mean yo are stopped from writing it right now.
My answer, that did not exist when you wrote this 30 minutes ago, does exist right now.
