Argument from incredulity

From RationalWiki

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Even if an explanation cannot be found, the creator is still far from proven.

Sometimes they compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H₂O.

Another form, the argument from personal incredulity, takes the form "I can't believe P, therefore not-P." Merely because one cannot believe that, for example, homeopathy is anything more than a placebo does not magically make such treatment effective.

S T U B (The Pet Goat ate it)