Faith?

[Ryft]

You completely twist my words. This is basic principle of burden of proof. If someone does not meet the burden of proof, then you are justified in not accepting their claims until they do. The Dragon in the Garage story is an example to show how people avoid burden of proof by making claims that protect them from scientific inquiry. This is basic logic. I find it laughable you disagree with this since you're such a self proclaimed philosopher.

Then perhaps you were twisting your own words, Eilonnwy? Because not accepting the claim P ("there is a dragon") is very different from asserting the claim ¬P ("there is not a dragon"). The former does not commit the fallacy, but the latter certainly does and the latter is what you said: "And you would be justified in saying there really isn't a dragon in my garage because you can't verify for yourself and you know I could also be lying or delusional" (emphasis added).

Still laughable?

Argument ad ignorantiam deals with when you disbelieve something because you can't imagine it's possibly true. For instance when people refuse to believe the Big Bang because they can't imagine the universe came into being from an explosion.

Incorrect. That refers to the argument from incredulity which is related to, but different from, the ad ignorantiam fallacy. The 'incredulity' fallacy is committed when you think a lack of evidence for P counts in favour of Q, while the 'ad ignorantiam' fallacy is committed when you think a lack of evidence for P counts in favour of ¬P.

... by the brilliant and sadly late Carl Sagan ...

I really... really... miss him... *sniffle*... and Dawkins makes me miss Sagan even more.

Maybe I'll take up Arcanus's challenge ...

Yes!!

... [but] to be perfectly honest, I have too much on my plate right now to add another writing project to my schedule.

...oh. Damnit.

---

Arcanus seems to think the burden of proof is with athiests, when it comes to the existance (or not) of God. I believe the reverse is true.

And you would be incorrect, for Arcanus thinks nothing of the sort. The burden of proof is not determined by a class of people; in other words, it does not matter whether you are a 'theist' or an 'atheist'. The burden of proof is shouldered by whoever makes a claim—including atheists, and not exclusively theists. If one makes a claim, then one shoulders the burden proving the claim. It does not matter if you are a theist or an atheist. For example, an atheist can claim that "God does not exist" and such would shoulder the burden of proof.

Please, Arcanus, define for me exactly what this God thing is. I have heard many contradictory things said about it.

When you heard these contradictory things said about God, did you bother to find out if they were talking about the same deity? I ask because, as you should know, it is "contradictory" only if they are referring to the same deity (e.g., the statements "Terry is a girl" and "Terry is not a girl" are contradictory only if they are referring to the same person). If you did determine that they are talking about the same deity, then did you bother to find out if they knew what they were talking about? There is no shortage of people who talk about things they know little or nothing about (e.g., a person might say that evolution teaches we evolved from monkeys, but their saying so doesn't mean it is so). In short, I am asking you to demonstrate that you have practiced intellectual responsibility.

If you have time, explain why the attributes you assign it can't be natural (and give examples).

It follows from the very definition of natural, a term which "refers to phenomena of the physical world ... from the subatomic to the cosmic." If God is the creator of the physical universe then, necessarily (i.e., by definition), he is not part of the physical universe. If he is not part of the physical universe then, necessarily, physical phenomena cannot describe him. (This is why practically all terms used to describe his nature are ultimately apophatic; e.g., eternal means "not temporal").