Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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?

You're in no place to speak of me "ignoring" you when you've ignored many of my direct questions.

And as to your point: I don't care if you don't like the word or not. Either you consider something improbable or you don't.

Most of my family is atheist but they don't like the word "atheist" so they don't call themselves atheists. I don't care. They're still atheists because they literally say they don't believe in any kind of God. That's what atheism means.

In the same way, if you consider something improbable I don't care if you don't like the word 'improbable'.

Like I said, you're in no place to talk of me ignoring you when you repeatedly ignore my direct questions.

I didn't answer the questions and explained why I would say the thing which you are asking about.   That is not a dodging the question, but explaining why it is incorrect.   I'm not going to answer a question, asking  "did you stop beating your wife".

 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).

Actually, that's your fault. I have to make assumptions about your view that I consider to be reasonable when you repeatedly refuse to characterize your view and answer questions about it.

Okay, I'll stop trying to guess what your view is. But either tell me what it is and answer my questions, or stop spouting nonsense whilst expecting a double-standard.

1) How do you define God? How improbable I consider God to be, depends on which God we are talking about.
2) Do you consider fire-breathing dragons improbable or not? Yes or no. It's a true dichotomy that you keep ignoring.

You claim that you wouldn't say that they were improbable. But I hope you realize that means you consider them probable.

I did answer about my view... I don't believe in fire breathing dragons, because I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe that they do exist.   That's it.   Your not going to drag me into your pseudo-skepticism.

1.)  How did this become about how I define God?   If you are making the claim, then you get to define God/god as it pertains to your claim. 
2.)  See above.    And if your reasoning is correct here, then you are saying that there is not a skeptical a neutral position, that one needs to make a claim.

 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's not up to me to define God. I don't have to turn things on you, they've been on you all along.

It seems clear to me that:

1) You have an imperfect understanding of the argument from ignorance.
2) This is partly due to your inability to appreciate that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and your inability to appreciate the principle of parsimony.

Here   is my understanding of the Arguement from ignorance:  The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.   If you think that this is wrong, then I am happy to discuss.

If you want to justify shifting the goal posts for "extraordinary claims" then I'm happy to discuss.   I don't think that you have a valid epistemic position to hold to there (although it is a catchy phrase).

 It wouldn't make your reasoning correct (although it may confront me with a choice).

Look, you talk of strawmen... but you are strawmanning me whilst you continue to assume I'm denying all gods equally. How improbable a particular god is depends on the god.

But all unparsimonious gods are improbable by virtue of being unparsimonious. Some are simply more unparsimonious and improbable than others.

The reason why, in truth, you don't consider fire-breathing dragons to be probable, is because of the principle of parsimony. It's because their existence would be unparsimonious and it is irrational and illogical to believe in more entities than necessary without any actual evidence.

You may not see it that way, but that is intutively why you consider them improbable (you say you don't but you do. Either that or you actually believe in fire-breathing dragons... which I highly doubt).... the question becomes "Why the hell would there be any fire-breathing dragons? It's simpler to assume they probably don't exist").

Absence of evidence isn't always not absence of evidence. Sometimes it is. That is not the point of the argument from ignorance. The point of the argument from ignorance is that absence of evidence of X is not positive evidence that X doesn't exist... and just because you can't prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

None of that applies to me. God is improbable for exactly the same reason that dragons or unicorns are.

Or any of the mythological gods, or any other supernatural deities are.

Like I said, you have exactly the same position as me on all other gods. I simply go one god further.

I think you are assuming that I have the same position as you.    And again, appealing to what you think I believe (which you seem to have a poor track record of doing), doesn't make your case.  That is a fallacy.

 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.

It's your job to tell me what "God" we're talking about. You're the one who believes in something incoherent.

This is the type of thing that I am having difficulty with. You are making a claim and acting like you don't know what that claim is about in the same thought process.  

 Further arguing that it is true (or more probable) until it is proven to be false, is the argument from ignorance

No. Arguing that it is true or probable until proven to be false without any good reason to believe that it is indeed true or more probable, is the argument from ignorance. If I actually have good reason to believe something is true or probable, then it's perfectly rational to believe it's true or probable. Obviously.

If all I was doing is assuming position X and saying "Not X is wrong until further notice" then that would be the argument from ignorance, yes. But If I have good reason to believe X is right, and not X is wrong (which I do) then there's no fallacy here.

If you provide reason for you claim, then yes, I would agree that is not an argument from ignorance.   However I think that you have long forgotten where this all started at, and what the claim that was being made was.

 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.

No. You haven't asked me once why I consider God to be improbable. And you haven't once told me which God we're talking about here. You have a specific God in mind, I don't. When I say God is improbable you react by assuming I mean your God. And I probably do. I probably do consider your God to be improbable. But I could be wrong. I could consider them impossible. But how can I explain why I think your God is improbable or impossible until you tell me?

I could be wrong. My past experience just tells me that theists usually believe in something either highly improbable, or in many cases, completely impossible.

Actually I have just been discussing principles.  And I get the feeling (more and more), that we are discussing different things.

 What is it, that you mean by "improbable"?

Not probable. We know what probability means. It means likelihood to exist.

By saying that you don't consider fire-breathing dragons improbable, I hope you realize that means you believe they probably exist.

Try saying things that make sense! "I don't like the word" doesn't cut it.

---