@kennethamy,
kennethamy;154509 wrote:No. I am saying that for you to argue that I may be an obsessive-compulsive because there is no evidence that I am not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy. If I did not know, then others would know, and they could tell me, because there would be evidence that I was. Unless there is evidence that I am, it is just gratuitous to say that I may be OC anyway. That simply would mean that it is not impossible that I am not. But the argument, it is not impossible that you are not OC therefore you may be OC is preposterous. Ir is not impossible that you are an ET, therefore you may be an ET is also preposterous.
No it's not. Arguing that you have free will because there is no evidence that you do not, is committing the ignorantium fallacy.
"Having OC" is just another way of saying "not having free will", just as a positive. Assuming the non-existence of something through ignorance is not a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a positive. Assuming the existence of something is a fallacy, even if you formulate it as a negative.
Here's an analogy of what you are doing: The existence of "God" is the opposite of the existence of "no God".
There is no evidence for the existence of "no God".
Therefore assuming the existence of "no God" is an argument from ignorance.
Since "no God" does not exist, God must exist.
You can see, just formulating something as a positive does not mean that assuming the nonexistence of that positive is an argument from ignorance.
Stones don't have free will, therefore free will is something that has to be argued for, not the absence of it, even if you call it "having OC".