Tim claimed that evidence for X would change his mind, but then when evidence for X was provided, instead of changing his mind, he immediately moved the goalposts and demanded evidence for Y and Z, and even when that evidence was presented, he moved the goalposts again and demanded evidence for A, B & C.

This can go on forever:

“But what about…” (Gets answered)

“But what about…” (Gets answered)

“But what about…” (Gets answered)

“But what about… (Unable to answer)

Aha!

Moving the goalposts is common when someone is attached to a belief or outcome, and has no real intention of changing their mind about it, no matter what evidence is presented against it.

Employer: “Not yet… first I’m going to need you to do A, B & C”

Moving the goalposts example #2 Jon Jones fan: “Jon Jones is the greatest UFC fighter of all time” Anderson Silva fan: “Greatest UFC fighter of all time? Don’t make me laugh. He isn’t even the greatest light-heavyweight of all time. I want to see him clean out the division first, at least tie Chuck Liddell’s record” Fast forward ten years… Jon Jones fan: “Well he’s cleaned out the division, he’s undefeated after ten years, he’s beaten the best of the best including Daniel Cormier twice, do you now concede that he’s the GOAT?” Anderson Silva fan: “Let’s first see how he does at heavyweight…” Moving the goalposts example #3

God of the gaps argument The God of the gaps argument is one of the most famous examples of moving the goalposts. God of the gaps in a nutshell:

“Science can’t explain X therefore God did it”

However, just because science can’t (yet) explain X, that doesn’t mean that God did it, or that God is the only possible explanation.

God of the gaps thinking was common in the ancient world (and is still today) when man had no idea how everything worked. Everything was attributed to God/s: earthquakes, lightning, thunder etc. (God was angry), similarly demons and witches were seen as the cause of disease instead of germs.

However as we learnt more about how the world worked, we realized the true causes for these things, and “God” as an explanation continued to move into an ever receding area that science can’t (yet) explain. God is credited for the origin of life (the current gap in our understanding) by theists, however if science does discover the cause of the origin of life and it’s not “God”, then the goalposts will be moved again, and God will move into a new gap in our understanding with theists boldly claiming,“bet you can’t explain that!” “No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.” ― Robert G. Ingersoll “People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don’t have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it’s divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.” ― Hippocrates

Dealing with someone who keeps moving the goalposts

If you think you may be dealing with someone who is likely to move the goalposts in an argument, ask them what it would take to change their mind, and then double-confirm it.

“So if I provided evidence of X you would change your mind?”

However, if the person says they’re unsure what would change their mind, “I’m not sure”, “I don’t know”, “I have no idea” etc. you’re probably wasting your time.

Maybe they’ll even say that nothing will convince them, because they already “know” they’re right, or that the only evidence they’d accept would be impossible to satisfy. If that’s the case, save your breath.

See also: Definitional retreat

Demanding impossible evidence

Sometimes people are determined not to change their mind no matter what (e.g. religious believers who are emotionally attached to their beliefs and/or are afraid of hell) and will demand impossible evidence.

“I’ll stop believing in Christianity when God and Jesus comes down here and tells me to stop believing in it.” – actual quote from a friends girlfriend

If this is the case, if someone is demanding impossible evidence, or if they’re continually moving the goalposts, don’t waste your breath.

Ad hoc rescue fallacy

Ad hoc means “created or done for a particular purpose as necessary”, and in an argument it’s when you come up with excuses and rationalizations in the moment as to why your belief could still be true, despite a lack of evidence/evidence to the contrary.

Ad hoc arguments aren’t used repeatedly. They’re not a default go-to argument that people use to defend or support their beliefs. Rather they’re used as a once-off defense mechanism, to prevent an argument from being destroyed or falsified in the moment.