(August 10, 2013 at 11:44 am)Maelstrom Wrote:Quote:The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent
The burden of proof is yours. Thanks for providing an article that supports my position.
Read carefully "arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist". So you should have a reason for thinking that something does not exist. You never state the reason. That's exactly my point. You simply said that God does not exist because there is no evidence of God existence. You even claim that it is a proof (without stating any reason).
If you think that "there is no evidence of God existence" is the reason (or even proof) that God does not exist, then that is a false dilemma according to Wikipedia. You have not responsed to this. According to wikipedia, "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dillema. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?
