Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well agnostic theists are agnostic about all gods, apart from the ones they think are impossible, I reckon.

It's simply that the god they believe in... they are leaning towards existing rather than away from existing.

This is what I mean when I say it's disingenuous to pretend that you don't think such-and-such entity is improbable or probable. Fair enough if you think it's a 50% or unknown probability. But to try and avoid that as well... to pretend to have absolutely no opinion on things like unicorns, dragons, other gods, etc... it's just disingenuous.

Roadrunner was trying to have his cake and eat it too, and he's so unwilling to even define his own God, repeatedly, while repeatedly reacting to my statements about God as if I'm talking about his... that he had to go on block. He's not here for a proper discussion. There's nothing problematic about me saying "God is highly improbable" if I'm talking about a God that really is highly improbable. I could be talking about a God that can make square circles: A logically impossible God. You can't get more improbable than that!

But still, RR disingenuously continued over and over to react as if I'm talking about his God, all whilst refusing to define his God, and completely ignoring my statements about how I wasn't talking about his God, and how could I, because he refuses to describe his God to me.

I also said repeatedly that I don't consider all Gods equally improbable and it depends on the God. I need to know which God we're talking about. I was merely making a blanket statement about all Gods that I do have valid reasons to consider improbable.

It's almost as if he was pretending like it's impossible to do that about any god, all while he does exactly the same about other gods besides the one he believes in, and about dragons, and unicorns and other improbable entities.

His objection was to say that "improbable" was the wrong word, and he didn't like the word. Tough shit that he doesn't like the word, it is the right word. Probable/improbable is a true dichotomy. The only misleading aspect is the fact that it's not clear whether 50% is probable or improbable, because it's exactly half probable... and it's also possible to put an unknown probability on things. But I already addressed that. And I asked him if he honestly thinks the probability of fire breathing dragons is unknown or 50%

He won't answer direct questions directly, because that would make him have to face the fact that my analogy succeeds, and I have a point, and that I'm right when he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

This all started from his claim that me saying "God is highly improbable" is the argument from ignorance, as lack of evidence of God isn't positive evidence that God definitely doesn't exist. But I wasn't saying it was.

The whole point of a null hypothesis is down to a matter of parsimony, it's not to say "The null hypothesis is definitely correct until you can prove otherwise" that WOULD be the argument from ignorance. But that's not at all how the null hypothesis works! The point of the null hypothesis is that it's the more parsimonious one that is more likely to be correct... and that's how it is with atheism. You don't need positive evidence of God's non-existence to conclude that God is highly improbable because atheism is more parsimonious and the God hypothesis lacks evidence. Theism postulates an unnecessary entity without evidence... it's improbable for the exact same reason that Russell's Teapot or an invisible intangible unicorn is. It's an entity, with no evidence that is postulated.