When Mr. Ban goes on to counter my argument he states the complete opposition which was also a fallacy because his proposition was true simply because it was not proven to be false. This logical fallacy is known as appeal to ignorance. He also commits a fallacy known as slippery slope when insinuating my actions will lead to an undesirable consequence results. Now if I said if capable researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for a god for a long time, they have not found a god, and it’s the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven’t found it creates some evidence that it doesn’t exist this would correct my fallacy. This argument commits no fallacy because the believer may indeed believe that god does exist just because god was not been disproven although researchers have been searching for answers they have not found any giving the possibility that god does not exist. This argument is not compelling sampling because it was not forced to happen. My thinking has changed significantly I realized that if I were to talk to Mr. Ban again then I would prepare argument that commits not fallacies. I would take more time to listen during our brief encounter I was not listening fully because I had my