I agreed with Ace's sentiment in the previous sig - I understand what he was trying to get across - but by the way it was expressed I agree with Arcanus, it was a fallacious statement: Saying God doesn't exist unless you have evidence to say otherwise, is indeed the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.
I can see you have changed your sig now Ace, to what you were trying to express before I believe? It's now not fallacious - and I also agree with it.
Finally, I also agree entirely with your previous sig Ace - if you meant it in the sense of God doesn't exist in the realms of science right? Because he is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable, and he lacks scientific evidence? Which I'm sure is what you meant, but it wasn't mentioned in the sig. The problem was that in your sig you didn't mention that you only meant 'in the realms of science'. So, out of context - it was misleading.
EvF
I can see you have changed your sig now Ace, to what you were trying to express before I believe? It's now not fallacious - and I also agree with it.
Finally, I also agree entirely with your previous sig Ace - if you meant it in the sense of God doesn't exist in the realms of science right? Because he is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable, and he lacks scientific evidence? Which I'm sure is what you meant, but it wasn't mentioned in the sig. The problem was that in your sig you didn't mention that you only meant 'in the realms of science'. So, out of context - it was misleading.
EvF
