Hume

=== Uniformity ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm
http://davidhumephilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/11/hume-on-principle-of-uniformity-of.html
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2104014?uid=3739368&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102927700947
=== Hume's fork ===
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork If accepted, Hume's Fork makes it pointless to try to prove the existence of God (for example) as a matter of fact. If God is not literally made up of physical matter, and does not have an observable effect on the world, making a statement about God is not a matter of fact. Therefore, a statement about God must be a relation of ideas. In this case if we prove the statement "God exists," it doesn't really tell us anything about the world; it is just playing with words. It is easy to see how Hume's Fork voids the causal argument and the ontological argument for the existence of a non-observable (non-material) God. However, this does not mean that the validity of Hume's Fork would imply that God definitely does not exist, only that it would imply that the existence of God cannot be proven as a matter of fact without worldly evidence.
Replace each instance of God with "laws of logic":
If accepted, Hume's Fork makes it pointless to try to prove the existence of "laws of logic" (for example) as a matter of fact. If "laws of logic" is not literally made up of physical matter, and does not have an observable effect on the world, making a statement about "laws of logic" is not a matter of fact. Therefore, a statement about "laws of logic" must be a relation of ideas. In this case if we prove the statement ""laws of logic" exists," it doesn't really tell us anything about the world; it is just playing with words. It is easy to see how Hume's Fork voids the causal argument and the ontological argument for the existence of a non-observable (non-material) "laws of logic". However, this does not mean that the validity of Hume's Fork would imply that "laws of logic" definitely does not exist, only that it would imply that the existence of "laws of logic" cannot be proven as a matter of fact without worldly evidence.
The insistence on evidence for God is Special pleading because there is no likewise insistence on evidence for the laws of logic. Evidence is an irrelevant characteristic for the laws of logic and also for God because God is logic personified. God cannot be the exception to the rule, as it would constitute special pleading. God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the evidence for the very concept of evidence: this prevents Agrippian regression of evidences. 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=KJV ".. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men....."
Category:Logical fallacies
Category:Philosophy
Category:Induction
Category:Special pleading fallacy