Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[RoadRunner79]

---

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

So basically you're still unwilling to answer the question. I rest my case.

You don't have any positive evidence that fire-breathing dragons exist, and yet you rightfully consider them improbable. It's exactly the same case with me and God. You are not going to pretend that fire-breathing dragons have a 50% or unknown probability existing, we both rightfully agree that such a creature existing on earth without us ever finding any is improbable. And that fire-breathing such as that is an improbable ability.

To me, God seems the same way, only even more so. Not only are his abilities highly improbable but in some conceptions of God they're actually self-contradictory.

1) You are disingenuous when you avoid my question repeatedly and pretend you are not doing exactly the same thing with fire-breathing dragons.
2) The improbability of God depends on the defintion. And it is your job to tell me what conception of God you think I'm denying. If God is the universe, then I'm a pantheist. So obviously not all conceptions of God are improbable. What God are we talking about?

The shoe is on your foot and I answer your questions but you dodge mine. I don't care if you outright say "fire-breathing dragons are improbable" or not, we both know you think they are, so you are simply being disingenuous. My analogy succeeds because in both cases we're not believing in something that is absurd because there's no evidence of it... it doesn't fail simply because you're too disingenuous to admit it. If you were not disingenuous you wouldn't constantly dodge the question and avoid the burden of proof. You have claimed I am denying God, but you haven't even told me what God I am supposedly denying. That isn't my job. Obviously not all kinds of god are highly improbable, some are more improbable than others... some are impossible... and some obviously must exist because they have no real content and are just labellings of things we already know to exist ("God is the universe" and shit like that).

Which God are we talking about?

Because God with a capital G, is improbable for its characteristics. Just like a fire-breathing dragon is. And when there's literally no evidence of something, of course it's improbable. That's why unicorns are improbable, that's why pixes are improbable.

Once again, you fail to understand the argument of ignorance. Absence of evidence doesn't mean positive evidence that something definitely doesn't exist, but a lack of evidence for the absurd certainly implies that that absurd thing probably doesn't exist. That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is all about. Saying that an extraordinary claim is improbable without evidence is not an extraordinary claim. It's occam's razor, it's the principle of parsimony. You don't seem to understand parsimony or the argument from ignorance at all. But it's no surprise, because if you did, you probably wouldn't be a theist.

The burden of proof isn't on all claims when no one is claiming any knowledge of anything. The principle of parsimony matters. All other things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. You are the one who postulates unnecessary entities... so I'm saying you're probably wrong, because I understand parsimony. Checkmate doofus-face.

---

Did you ignore the second part of my post, because I did answer your question, and explained why I did not like the word improbable? I think that you may be seeking to put words in my mouth, and then trying to beat up that straw man (and complaining when I don't go along with that). Also, even if you are successful in trying to turn things back on me, and find some sort of hypocrisy, it doesn't make your argument. It wouldn't make your reasoning correct (although it may confront me with a choice). It doesn't change that if you are making a claim about the objective world, that you have a burden of proof towards that claim. Further arguing that it is true (or more probable) until it is proven to be false, is the argument from ignorance. Also the more you speak on the matter, the more I am thinking that by improbable, you are just talking about your own personal incredulity. What is it, that you mean by "improbable"?