You misunderstand how an appeal to ignorance works as well as how I was presenting atheism.

1. The AtI works only when you're appealing to ignorance in cases where there is equal lack of evidence for both sides. E.g. "I don't know that there isn't a teapot circling the sun, therefore, there is one". This ignores of course the improbability and impossibility of a teapot circling the sun. (For instance, any teapot would immediately desintegrate near the sun, so it's impossible.)

This ties into my 2. point: I specifically said that God is illogical/impossible. The attributes he is supposed to possess are contradictory, such as omnipotence.

3. Though there is no evidence in favor of God, there is plenty against him. Most previous theories of how and where he exists have been disproven (not in the clouds or the heavens or in the trees or the seas) and for all things he is supposed to have done and created there are more plausible explanations that do have a lot of evidence in their favor.

If you have a theory of existence like the Big Bang that does have evidence, and another theory that has none and is absurd on the face of it like God, then the only rational conclusion is to follow the former and forget about the latter.

Note that yes, these all add up to an inductive argument, and induction does not involve 100% certainty, which ironically is what believers always insist non-believers present (ironically, because their own belief rests on 0% certainty). But it does add up to a 99% certainty, or something thereabouts, which is good enough to state "God doesn't exist" and move on with our lives to think about more important things.

The AtI works only when you're appealing to ignorance in cases where there is equal lack of evidence for both sides. — Artemis

There is: none. :up:

I specifically said that God is illogical/impossible. — Artemis

You did, but an assertion is just that. Where's the justification; the evidence?

Though there is no evidence in favor of God, there is plenty against him. Most previous theories of how and where he exists have been disproven (not in the clouds or the heavens or in the trees or the seas) and for all things he is supposed to have done and created there are more plausible explanations that do have a lot of evidence in their favor. — Artemis

What is this evidence against the existence of God? You mention that some things God is said to have done were achieved by other means. So what? Maybe they were, or maybe She put those 'other means' in place. This kind of 'evidence' is little better than hearsay or rumour, and is not acceptable to a scientist or a philosopher. There is no evidence ... unless I am mistaken, and you can enlighten me? :chin:

If you have a theory of existence like the Big Bang that does have evidence, and another theory that has none and is absurd on the face of it like God, then the only rational conclusion is to follow the former and forget about the latter. — Artemis

If both explanations are possible, and fully account for all available evidence, logic dictates that we may not arbitrarily select one over the other to be the One True Explanation. You, a man devoted to logic and reason, are obviously aware of this. We can guess, of course, as we humans do so often. But let's be honest with ourselves, and call a guess a guess. Or we could apply Occam's Razor, with the admission that it's a rule of thumb only; it has no authority; it's a way of guessing.

P.S. your use of "absurd" is a giveaway: it's an emotional term, with no logical contribution to what you're saying. You're actually trying to belittle an argument by calling it names. :smile:

The AtL is like being in the bedroom and claiming that there is or is not an apple on the kitchen table without being able to see the kitchen table or check about the apple.

What I'm saying is that we've gone into the kitchen and found the kitchen table has a banana on it, but no apple. We don't have "proof" of the absence of the apple other than there is no apple to be seen or felt or in any way discovered. It would be nonsensical therefore to continue insisting on the existence of the apple, but we can accept the banana.

I hope that makes the difference clear to you. If not, I fear there's no hope for you.

What I'm saying is that we've gone into the kitchen and found the kitchen table has a banana on it, but no apple. — Artemis

Yes, and I'm wondering:

• How did you know to look in the kitchen, on the table?
• How did you know you were looking for an apple?
• Is it an ordinary apple you're looking for, or does it have any special qualities that might make it difficult to discover?

We don't have "proof" of the absence of the apple other than there is no apple to be seen or felt or in any way discovered. It would be nonsensical therefore to continue insisting on the existence of the apple — Artemis

If your example is literal, we would already know quite a bit about the apple we were looking for. If the apple was invisible to the naked eye, for example, we would expect that, and maybe use our fingers to search, instead of our eyes. And so forth.

In the case of God, we don't know what She looks like, or where to look for her. Perhaps She only hangs around in sheds. Then we might see you emerge from the kitchen, proclaiming the absence of God, and we might wonder if you'd looked in the shed. :chin:

Your 'proofs' include no evidence of a standard that would satisfy a scientist or a philosopher. Thus I conclude, pending the arrival of new evidence, that you cannot justify your beliefs, and simply assert them again and again, perhaps hoping I will tire? :wink:

...I fear there's no hope for you — Artemis

:smile: Perhaps you're right. I hope there is hope for you, though...? :chin:

In the case of God, we don't know what She looks like, or where to look for her. Perhaps She only hangs around in sheds. Then we might see you emerge from the kitchen, proclaiming the absence of God, and we might wonder if you'd looked in the shed — Pattern-chaser

So basically, you're saying you believe in something you know nothing about, can't know anything about, and is unknowable generally. Gotcha.

Your 'proofs' include no evidence of a standard that would satisfy a scientist or a philosopher. Thus I conclude, pending the arrival of new evidence, that you cannot justify your beliefs, and simply assert them again and again, perhaps hoping I will tire? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Most philosophers and scientists use these same ideas, so I'm not sure what you mean. They said gods were in the trees. We looked and there were none. They said they were on the mountains. We looked, there were none. They said gods were in the heavens, and again we looked and found nothing. The goalposts have been moved and moved by believers until the only things they can fall back on are some concepts of an "unknown unknowable," belief in which rests solely on faith.

It's very much obvious that we've done thousands of years of work looking over and under and inside every possible "kitchen table" and have turned up nothing. At this point, the burden of proof rests on you and your ilk. Just like it would rest on any person purporting the existence of Nessie, Santa, elves, ents, and nymphs.

Your argument for God is the same as it would be for the existence of the Jabberwocky.

nymphs — Artemis

Darn; I was hoping to meet one!

Wee can nearly presume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but for a Deity who foresaw and designed it all from scratch by throwing the right stuff in the right amounts together, as nature might have arrived at, too, although He seemingly not able to just do it all instantly. He, as a the greatest scientist, would be the ultimate; just look at His world—well, there are some problems, but overall a job well done. I wonder how He happened to be just sitting around, as First and Fundamental, yet fully intact as a system of mind and emotion and personhood.

In the case of God, we don't know what She looks like, or where to look for her. Perhaps She only hangs around in sheds. Then we might see you emerge from the kitchen, proclaiming the absence of God, and we might wonder if you'd looked in the shed — Pattern-chaser


So basically, you're saying you believe in something you know nothing about, can't know anything about, and is unknowable generally. Gotcha. — Artemis

:smile: Not quite, but close. :wink: If you ask three believers to describe God, you'll get four contradictory answers, to mash up the old joke. Few believers are rash enough to list the specific attributes of God, because (as you say) we don't know. Nevertheless, we all believe in God because we find value and benefit in doing so.

Your 'proofs' include no evidence of a standard that would satisfy a scientist or a philosopher. Thus I conclude, pending the arrival of new evidence, that you cannot justify your beliefs, and simply assert them again and again, perhaps hoping I will tire? :wink: — Pattern-chaser


Most philosophers and scientists use these same ideas, so I'm not sure what you mean. They said gods were in the trees. We looked and there were none. They said they were on the mountains. We looked, there were none. They said gods were in the heavens, and again we looked and found nothing. The goalposts have been moved and moved by believers until the only things they can fall back on are some concepts of an "unknown unknowable," belief in which rests solely on faith. — Artemis

The last bit is spot on: ours is a faith position. The point in dispute is whether yours is too. But to the specifics of what you say: the evidence is that "we" looked for God, but found nothing. You don't mention how "we" decided where to look, nor what we thought we might use as a God-detector. I would've thought these would be quite important elements of "our" search? :chin:

Ah, you say, but I told you: the believers told us God is in the trees/mountains/heavens, so that's where we looked. I wonder if you misunderstood, because God is in the trees, mountains and heavens. But She is not a human person, who might easily be spotted in such places. I'm not going to hoist myself by my own petard, and tell you that God is invisible to the human eye, because I don't know if this is true or not. But I will say that I wouldn't necessarily expect God to be visible to me either.

You speak of God - in the context of searching for Her - as though She is a physical thing that you can simply look for and find. I agree with you that such searches in the past have come up with nothing, and I wouldn't expect this to change in the future. The physical-spacetime-universe-existence of God is questionable, at best, non-existent at worst. The importance and value of God is immaterial.

The only point we have to dispute about is whether your views are a faith position. You have failed to offer evidence (of a suitable standard) against God's existence. I have already freely asserted that I know of no evidence for God's existence. I believe there is no evidence at all, for, against or 'other', and you have failed to find any, so I think we should conclude (at least for now) that there is none.

So your position is that you actively assert the non-existence of God without any evidence at all on which to base your conclusion. Either you are offering an Argument from Ignorance, or your position is a faith position, like mine (if opposite in direction). Which is it?

Example

(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.

This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence.

Quote from here.

This example perfectly describes your position, but in reverse. It's valid both ways round, as expected. If there is no evidence - and there is not - no form of logical analysis or consideration can be performed. Therefore, logically, no conclusion may correctly be drawn. That's what AfI tells us here, and it's right.

We are both people of faith, my friend. I respect your faith. Let's move on. :up: :smile:

At this point, the burden of proof rests on you and your ilk. Just like it would rest on any person purporting the existence of Nessie, Santa, elves, ents, and nymphs. — Artemis

[rant] "Burden of proof" is what people say when they want someone else to do the work. There is no burden of proof. There is only us, the topic we're discussing, and the ideas we have to contribute to that discussion. [/rant]

But you are wrong, I think. Things that might possibly exist, but for which there is no evidence at all, must logically remain in a sort of superposition of all possible conclusions. Why? Because we cannot logically advance to a conclusion without some foundation to rest it on, and that foundation is evidence.

We must refrain from concluding anything, and leave the matter undecided; up in the air, as it were. We can't even estimate probabilities, because our estimates also require evidence as grist for their mills. So we cannot even suggest that (for example) God's existence is vanishingly unlikely, because we have no basis on which to estimate any numerical value of probability.

You are a logical person; you've said so. So stick to your guns and your beliefs, and stop drawing conclusions where you have no evidence. It is illogical, Captain! :smile:

So we cannot even suggest that (for example) God's existence is vanishingly unlikely, because we have no basis on which to estimate any numerical value of probability. — Pattern-chaser

One might say the scales tip slightly in favor of God, due to the minuscule amount of awareness there is of God - necessary for the disccusion.

To discuss whether there is or isn't God - well, you would need God; and the same would apply for any object in place of God, correct?

Yet there is the situation of people being and having been unaware of certain flora and fauna, that does exist and did exist prior to its discovery and being situated in to human awareness.

If something that one is completely unaware of does exist - then how do you go about denying the existence of something you are aware of, if even mildly?

Not quite sure what you're getting at ... but I can't see anything to argue with. :up:

From www.logicallyfallacious.com:

Q: Surely Athiesm must be an argument from ignorance then. "There's no evidence for God. Therefore God does not exist"

A: That's not atheism. What you presented is a bad argument someone might give for atheism, and yes, that would be fallacious reasoning. Atheism is the disbelief in any gods - there is no reason included in the definition. Those atheists who insist that no god can possibly exist (rather than just stating that they don't believe in any gods) need to provide evidence to support that claim.

Taken from here.

I'm curious as to how one would go about denying the existence of something one is actively aware of.

If it does not exist, where from and how does one acquire this awareness?

If we level God with plenty of theories - it might just be that the average man isn't sufficiently advanced, technologically or otherwise, to observe God; as was the case with Black Holes until recently.

If God were the mountains and the trees and the skies, then the geologists and botanists and metereologists would have found some proof of that by now. They haven't, so the kitchen table remains devoid of an apple.

Burden of proof rests on you just as much as it would rest on the believer of the Jabberwocky. No, I don't want to do any more work than has been already done for millennia by others seeking truth, because at this point it's as much a waste of our precious time on this earth as searching for the Jabberwocky would be.

Finding the table empty of evidence for the apple and insisting we must remain agnostic and call our knowledge of ~apple "faith" is just silliness.

But we've come to running in circles, and I'm afraid you're fulfilling Singer's quote: "It is a distinctive characteristic of an ideology that it resists refutation. If the foundations of an ideological position are knocked out from under it, new foundations will be found, or else the ideological position will just hang there, defying the logical equivalent of the laws of gravity."

So, in essence, there's nothing left to be said to you that would make any difference. And with that I take my leave of the conversation. G'day!

Finding the table empty of evidence for the apple and insisting we must remain agnostic and call our knowledge of ~apple "faith" is just silliness. — Artemis

No, it's logic.

But we've come to running in circles, and I'm afraid you're fulfilling Singer's quote: "It is a distinctive characteristic of an ideology that it resists refutation. If the foundations of an ideological position are knocked out from under it, new foundations will be found, or else the ideological position will just hang there, defying the logical equivalent of the laws of gravity." — Artemis

I have stated clearly that mine is a faith position; I offer no foundation for it, because there is none that I am aware of. You're the one in denial here....

I know you wish that was true.

:smile:

You have failed to offer evidence (of a suitable standard) against God's existence. I have already freely asserted that I know of no evidence for God's existence. — Pattern-chaser

Each are "maybe's" and neither can be honestly be taught as true.

If one doesn't want to sit on a fence, philosophical probabilities can be employed to estimate, based on self-contradiction, the only course available.

If one doesn't want to sit on a fence, philosophical probabilities can be employed to estimate. — PoeticUniverse

:up: Absolutely they can! But let's be honest as well, and state clearly that we're guessing, without basis in logic or fact. I find it helps with mental hygiene to be clear and honest with myself, never mind anyone else!

You have failed to offer evidence (of a suitable standard) against God's existence. I have already freely asserted that I know of no evidence for God's existence. — Pattern-chaser


Each are "maybe's" and neither can be honestly be taught as true. — PoeticUniverse

I think we can safely state that we have found no evidence at all concerning the existence of God, and we know of no way in which such evidence might be obtained. We could teach that, for what it's worth, couldn't we? :up:

we're guessing, without basis in logic or fact. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, as there is no "for sure". Both churches and anti-churches can be called on their dishonesty of claiming truth. Pastor Lou, at the Vineyard Church in Hopewell Junction,NY, was once an atheist, then was eventually reborn as a theist. He made the same truth-claiming mistake twice!

we're guessing, without basis in logic or fact — Pattern-chaser

:ok:

I think we can safely state that we have found no evidence at all concerning the existence of God, and we know of no way in which such evidence might be obtained. We could teach that, for what it's worth, couldn't we? — Pattern-chaser

We could, but the believers might suggest that God and His realm are invisible, along with that God operates just as nature does, such that they can't be told apart, along with Genesis being just metaphorical, etc.

We could, but the believers might suggest that God and His realm are invisible, along with that God operates just as nature does, such that they can't be told apart... — PoeticUniverse

They could. And as long as they "suggested" this, not asserted it as fact, they would be correct, for this is one possibility among ... God knows ( :smile: ) how many!

Are you saying it's illogical to guess?

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that guesswork does have a basis in logic, as it is reasoning about something. Illogical guesswork would be more akin to moping.

OK. :up:

God knows ( :smile: ) how many! — Pattern-chaser

So, to preserve integrity, both atheists and theists would have to become agnostic, meaning simply "I can't know for sure."

Please come to our agnostic church; we show the way, maybe!

or

There is no God, maybe.

Impacts are lessened.

So, to preserve integrity, both atheists and theists would have to become agnostic, meaning simply "I can't know for sure." — PoeticUniverse

By Jove, he's got it! :smile:

If you have a theory of existence like the Big Bang that does have evidence, and another theory that has none and is absurd on the face of it like God, then the only rational conclusion is to follow the former and forget about the latter. — Artemis

These are not mutually exclusive arguments. Further the Big Bang, often, or, really it used to often include the idea of a beginning which was part of what was thought silly, by the then steady state cosmologists, about Creation via God.

This ties into my 2. point: I specifically said that God is illogical/impossible. The attributes he is supposed to possess are contradictory, such as omnipotence. — Artemis

Which would be an example of what some Abrahamists focus on: the onmi traits, interpreting them as mathematically perfect qualities, rather than expressive comparative qualities. That is compared to us God is unbelievably X, rather than infinitely X setting up paradoxes. Now those theists who can't let go of a rather odd turn by certain theologians certainly bear half of the responsibility for the importance all the omni discussions between atheists and theists. But the whole thing should embarrass both sides.