I would call that an appeal to ignorance, but really there isn't enough readily available evidence to say that your argument is a fallacy. But, then we can also reason that there is not enough evidence to disprove the existence of God, therefore God exists.
eh, no we can't we can reason that because there is so little (read, no) evidence to prove/support the existence of a god, we simply do not know. but the logical assumption is to lean towards the negative, as there is (as has been mentioned) so little/no evidence towards the positive... the argument that because you cann't disprove the existence of god to an extent true, but it also doesn't mean you can just say it exists and expect to be believed by any right minded person (taking out of the account of course, the years and years of religious brainwashing and upbringing). a similar case. I believe there is a man on the moon, but he is hiding from us which is why we haven't seen him on the telescopes yet. disprove that.
There's no evidence there isn't a very very tiny invisible pink unicorn hiding under my bed that feeds on dust bunnies, does that mean it exists too?
And what is this evidence? Is it really evidence to prove that God doesn't exist(or just evidence to prove evolution, etc.)? Has it been empirically proven by a reliable authority? Is it the truth? How do you know? There’s a picture of an evil bunny rabbit right in this here post of mine, can’t you see it? It’s there! I sure see it, why can’t you? These things can easily be proven to not exist, through our senses and through research and analysis. And Neph, there is readily available evidence that you can find that unicorn, just get out a microscope and start looking and if it isn‘t there then it doesn‘t exist. There are some things that are much harder to prove or disprove, such as the existence of a higher power, or the big bang. I suppose that I am trying to say that you can safely use the appeal to ignorance in cases where there is no readily available evidence to disprove or prove that belief. As for the moon man, actually even the evil bunny rabbit: Can we trust our senses to determine that those things aren’t there? Read Descartes!
The probability of a man living on the moon is probably higher than the probability of the universe being created by the big bang, so how would you answer your question? (assuming that you believe in the big bang theory)
That Guy, go back and reread your debate notes. You can't prove a negative. That's an appeal to ignorance, which you yourself accused us of trying to do. (source: http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~pinsky/logicguide.htm ) And That Guy, your last comment... is... sad, really. How do you judge such probabilities? Indeed, if god could have always existed, who is to say the universe could not have always existed in one form or another? Could God not be a function of the universe, or one with the universe, not unlike how a BIOS is part of the motherboard? Edit: Basically, calm down. Also, one minor question I have to ask... in that debate over whether or not psychic powers were real, you cited a study showing brain activity to be responsible for the illusion of the sensation... yet didn't mention that the same activity gives the spiritual highs that can be achieved through prayer or meditation. Ultimately, I know you have a bias towards support for religion but if you are going to let that bias cause "forgetting" to mention certain things you may not wish to admit, or let it degrade into foamy-mouthed zealousness (which you are beginning to come dangerously close to here and have fallen into in the past, such as in the priest molestation thread), then perhaps it's best you do not try to debate in here. Philosophy is love of wisdom, but part of achieving wisdom lies in exercising restraint when necessary (yes, I know I'm probably hardly one to talk here).
My reasoning text book said that also, but I'm quoting my reasoning prof. She could be wrong, but I would say she has the relevant credentials to be a reliable authority on the matter(which makes the appeal to authority stronger). Right here, I'm not sure where you are getting at, seems almost like you're making me out to be a strawman! The big bang theory breaks the second rule of thermodynamics, so believing that this is the cause of the universe is faith, and is improbable. Believing that God was the creator of the universe is improbable also, and is faith! Nor have any other creations theories been proven. To believe any of these would be an appeal to ignorance, wouldn't it? "No one has disproven [insert creation theory], therefore it is true" "No one has proven [insert creation theory], therefore it is false" But, can we have faith that these things are true or false? What is the difference between faith and ignorance? If I did do those things, that isn't relevant towards this argument. It seems like Ad hominem circumstantial(attacking the person's circumstances). Almost seems abusive also. Ad hominems aren't allowed in this forum. But, maybe I should think about these things a bit further before I post.. it seems like I'm questioning it all/searching for the Good as I type @_@
Appeal to authority is in itself a fallacy. Please. You flew off the handle and began to hypothesis you could even somehow compare probabilities, one of which would be for an event which we have no other way to guage. Unless of course its right, in which case I wish to see your helmetless moonmen soon. *sighs* No, no it doesn't. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] It's also phrased "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now. If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy. We can observe the matter in the universe spreading out and cooling down (i.e. cosmic microwave background) even now. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to this then we can see that the universe will continue to spread out and become less ordered and if it survives for long enough will eventually end in the 'Heat Death' when all of the matter has reached equilibrium and the entropy is at its highest. There may well be almost infinitesimal fluctuations but other than that the universe as we know it will be dead. (source: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm ) And if you wish to discuss physics, would not spontaneous creation on the whim of a god violate said laws? No, because there is evidence backing up science. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I would like to prevent another outburst by reminding you of past issues. And this is bad... how? Remember - question everything. That too is part of philosophy.
yes i beleive in god,but its disgusting to see people argue about it and they should just let people believe in what they want.If people have a problem with what u believe,tell that person to go screw themselves over.
hehe you'd think these people would stop getting annoyed and either encourage you to either believe and worhip their god, leave you alone, or encourage you to be an athiest to their god. at least athiests have to be believe in the god in order to deny their exiastance hehe.
She must be... that's like me denying that theres a griffon in my closet, therefore I must believe it is there.
because of the horde of rampaging loonies outside his door all desperate to learn the secrets of eternal happiness from the magical griffin?
Damnit Berry, you don't didn't drink while I was there, yet you go on crack right after I leave? - Ark
Most atheists don't worry about denying it. If the question comes up "What religion are you?", then they answer simply "I don't have one" or "I don't believe there is a God" or something similar. It's the ones who go trying to prove there's no God who I'd say this applies to somewhat, but then again, as Neph said, that's like saying "I'm going to prove to you that there's no gryphon in my closet!" and assuming there was one there to prove it's not in the first place.
