JWeinCom said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
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.
|
That's why I said that it depends on what kind of god you're arguing for.
If you're arguing for a deistic first cause kind of god, or using god to mean any being with power that transcends human knowledge, then evidence wouldn't matter, because that kind of god may or may not leave evidence.
When you're arguing for a god with specific characteristics though, then you often should expect evidence. For example, if someone wanted to argue for a god that answers prayers from christians, you'd expect evidence in the form of prayers answered at a rate higher than chance. If we look examine and can't find that evidence, then that is evidence against that version of god.
|
B.I.N.G.O! You hit the nail on the head with that post!
