JWeinCom said:
Ok..? Who cares? George Washington said and did some great things. He said and did some dumb things. This is one of the dumb ones.
There is no evidence for god, therefore god doesn't exist is not necessarily an argument for ignorance fallacy. In cases where we should expect evidence for something, then pointing out that there is not evidence can be a valid argument. For example, if I claimed there was a fire in my house, and there is no scorch marks, no smoke damage, etc, then the lack of evidence is proof that there was no fire. |
That's a modus tollens, not an argument from ignorance. It takes the form of if P then Q. Not Q, therefore not P. Or to put it into the house burning argument that you used. If P (my house burnt down), then Q (there should be scorch marks and fire damage). There are not any scorch marks or fire damage (Not Q), therefore my house didn't burn down (Not P).
The problem with the the argument from ignorance fallacy is that the statement "If X then there should be evidence for X" does not always follow. For example "If Joe killed Sue there should be evidence that Joe killed Sue." This statement is illogical because Joe could have destroyed the evidence, or taken special care not to produce any evidence.
I agree that absence of evidence is a case for not believing in a God. But it is not a case for believing that a God *doesn't* exist.