Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[RoadRunner79]

So then, are you saying that we can just dismiss anything because of this?

If there is no evidence for "it", then, yes.  For instance, I think that it is probable that ET exists, but if a systematic survey of the sky was conducted and no evidence for ET was found, then, yes, I would conclude that ET may simply not exist, even though ET is completely a natural phenomenon.  If god exists, what expectations can we have for the existence of such a being (or, beings)?  You are of the mindset that there can be no expectations whatsoever, and for you, that's okay, but for me, it's not.  I cannot see how your belief in god is any different than believing in fairies.

Ok... but the issue is; (and where this all started) that you are now making a claim, and have a burden of proof towards that claim. What you are saying is not just a mere passive lack of belief.

If you would like to make your case, against whatever, then, go ahead.

Also, I think you are incorrect on your expectations of what my mindset is. I would focus on your arguments and let me speak for myself.

[Edwardo Piet]

Because you keep ignoring me. I asked you: Do you not believe that fire-breathing dragons are improbable?

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

So basically you're still unwilling to answer the question. I rest my case.

You don't have any positive evidence that fire-breathing dragons exist, and yet you rightfully consider them improbable. It's exactly the same case with me and God. You are not going to pretend that fire-breathing dragons have a 50% or unknown probability existing, we both rightfully agree that such a creature existing on earth without us ever finding any is improbable. And that fire-breathing such as that is an improbable ability.

To me, God seems the same way, only even more so. Not only are his abilities highly improbable but in some conceptions of God they're actually self-contradictory.

1) You are disingenuous when you avoid my question repeatedly and pretend you are not doing exactly the same thing with fire-breathing dragons.
2) The improbability of God depends on the defintion. And it is your job to tell me what conception of God you think I'm denying. If God is the universe, then I'm a pantheist. So obviously not all conceptions of God are improbable. What God are we talking about?

The shoe is on your foot and I answer your questions but you dodge mine. I don't care if you outright say "fire-breathing dragons are improbable" or not, we both know you think they are, so you are simply being disingenuous. My analogy succeeds because in both cases we're not believing in something that is absurd because there's no evidence of it... it doesn't fail simply because you're too disingenuous to admit it. If you were not disingenuous you wouldn't constantly dodge the question and avoid the burden of proof. And the alternative is literally that you're so crazy that you think fire-breathing dragons are probable. You have claimed I am denying God, but you haven't even told me what God I am supposedly denying. That isn't my job. Obviously not all kinds of god are highly improbable, some are more improbable than others... some are impossible... and some obviously must exist because they have no real content and are just labellings of things we already know to exist ("God is the universe" and shit like that).

Which God are we talking about?

Because God with a capital G, is improbable for its characteristics. Just like a fire-breathing dragon is. And when there's literally no evidence of something, of course it's improbable. That's why unicorns are improbable, that's why pixes are improbable.

Once again, you fail to understand the argument of ignorance. Absence of evidence doesn't mean positive evidence that something definitely doesn't exist, but a lack of evidence for the absurd certainly implies that that absurd thing probably doesn't exist. That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is all about. Saying that an extraordinary claim is improbable without evidence is not an extraordinary claim. It's occam's razor, it's the principle of parsimony. You don't seem to understand parsimony or the argument from ignorance at all. But it's no surprise, because if you did, you probably wouldn't be a theist.

The burden of proof isn't on all claims when no one is claiming any knowledge of anything. The principle of parsimony matters. All other things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. You are the one who postulates unnecessary entities... so I'm saying you're probably wrong, because I understand parsimony. Checkmate doofus-face.

---

I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.

That's because you don't understand the principle of parsimony.

---

In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable.

So you think they are probable.... don't pretend you have no opinion on the matter.

---

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

I do disagree however; with the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence crap you keep repeating. There is no epistemic reason for such a statement, or to shift the goal posts in such a way.

---

In case it’s unclear; I wouldn’t say that fire breathing dragons are improbable. I don’t think that would be the correct word, or could lead people to be confused by what I meant.   I just stick with I do not have sufficient reason, testimony or other evidence to believe that they exists.

There is probably a reason that I find no one saying that there is.

What's wrong with the belief in the existence of fairies, then?  People, after all, have seen them, or so they say?  While we're at it, how about alien abductions?  Do you believe in those, also?  If not, why not?

Oh hey hey he didn't outright say that fairies or unicorns or dragons are improbable so he's off the hook!

It doesn't work like that RR. You can't just hide behind disingenuousness. We know that there are many crazy things you don't believe in and that you consider improbable, including many other kinds of gods, and all the mythological gods.

You're an atheist just like I am with regards to all the other gods... I just go one god further.

So don't pretend otherwise. It won't cut it with a supremely honest person such as myself.

[RoadRunner79]

---

If by improbable, you mean that I have an a priori bias, which leads me to ignore any evidence or reason for such things, then no... I wouldn’t agree.

So basically you're still unwilling to answer the question. I rest my case.

You don't have any positive evidence that fire-breathing dragons exist, and yet you rightfully consider them improbable. It's exactly the same case with me and God. You are not going to pretend that fire-breathing dragons have a 50% or unknown probability existing, we both rightfully agree that such a creature existing on earth without us ever finding any is improbable. And that fire-breathing such as that is an improbable ability.

To me, God seems the same way, only even more so. Not only are his abilities highly improbable but in some conceptions of God they're actually self-contradictory.

1) You are disingenuous when you avoid my question repeatedly and pretend you are not doing exactly the same thing with fire-breathing dragons.
2) The improbability of God depends on the defintion. And it is your job to tell me what conception of God you think I'm denying. If God is the universe, then I'm a pantheist. So obviously not all conceptions of God are improbable. What God are we talking about?

The shoe is on your foot and I answer your questions but you dodge mine. I don't care if you outright say "fire-breathing dragons are improbable" or not, we both know you think they are, so you are simply being disingenuous. My analogy succeeds because in both cases we're not believing in something that is absurd because there's no evidence of it... it doesn't fail simply because you're too disingenuous to admit it. If you were not disingenuous you wouldn't constantly dodge the question and avoid the burden of proof. You have claimed I am denying God, but you haven't even told me what God I am supposedly denying. That isn't my job. Obviously not all kinds of god are highly improbable, some are more improbable than others... some are impossible... and some obviously must exist because they have no real content and are just labellings of things we already know to exist ("God is the universe" and shit like that).

Which God are we talking about?

Because God with a capital G, is improbable for its characteristics. Just like a fire-breathing dragon is. And when there's literally no evidence of something, of course it's improbable. That's why unicorns are improbable, that's why pixes are improbable.

Once again, you fail to understand the argument of ignorance. Absence of evidence doesn't mean positive evidence that something definitely doesn't exist, but a lack of evidence for the absurd certainly implies that that absurd thing probably doesn't exist. That's what "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is all about. Saying that an extraordinary claim is improbable without evidence is not an extraordinary claim. It's occam's razor, it's the principle of parsimony. You don't seem to understand parsimony or the argument from ignorance at all. But it's no surprise, because if you did, you probably wouldn't be a theist.

The burden of proof isn't on all claims when no one is claiming any knowledge of anything. The principle of parsimony matters. All other things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. You are the one who postulates unnecessary entities... so I'm saying you're probably wrong, because I understand parsimony. Checkmate doofus-face.

---

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? 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). 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 wouldn't make your reasoning correct (although it may confront me with a choice). 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. Further arguing that it is true (or more probable) until it is proven to be false, is the argument from ignorance. 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. What is it, that you mean by "improbable"?

[Edwardo Piet]

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 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.

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.

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.

 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.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence to be rational. But the reason why "claim" is not helpful here is because extraordinary beliefs require extaordinary evidence to be rational too. It doesn't matter if anyone openly claims an irrational belief or not... it doesn't change the fact that it's an irrational belief.

You have many rational beliefs about the non-existence of absurd and improbable entities, you are simply not expressing them. That is what I mean by you being disingenuous. You know you don't believe in unicorns or dragons or mythological gods. You know you don't consider them probable. You know they're improbable. You know there's good reasons to believe they aren't probable. You're just pretending otherwise. I'm just being more open and honest about what I consider to be improbable, that is all.

Just because I haven't went into detail to why I don't think they're improbable doesn't mean I don't have very good reasons to believe they're improbable.

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

Let's make it easy for you: The God you believe in I most likely consider impossible. Does that help?

But maybe not, maybe it's just improbable. Define it. If it still doesn't seem impossible, I'll ask further questions about your God to see if it has any features I consider to be logically contradictory or incoherent. Deal?

 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.

Which God are we talking about?

 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.

 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.

[Jehanne]

If there is no evidence for "it", then, yes.  For instance, I think that it is probable that ET exists, but if a systematic survey of the sky was conducted and no evidence for ET was found, then, yes, I would conclude that ET may simply not exist, even though ET is completely a natural phenomenon.  If god exists, what expectations can we have for the existence of such a being (or, beings)?  You are of the mindset that there can be no expectations whatsoever, and for you, that's okay, but for me, it's not.  I cannot see how your belief in god is any different than believing in fairies.

Ok... but the issue is; (and where this all started) that you are now making a claim, and have a burden of proof towards that claim.  What you are saying is not just a mere passive lack of belief.

If you would like to make your case, against whatever, then, go ahead.

Also, I think you are incorrect on your expectations of what my mindset is. I would focus on your arguments and let me speak for myself.

Here are my arguments against the existence of god:

1)  Like invisible dragons, no empirical evidence for such a being, beings.  Consistency demands that we treat all such invisible "entities" with the same respect (or, disrespect).

2)  The concept of god is contradictory and incoherent and not well-defined -- Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

3)  Divine hiddeness -- if God exists, why does He not reveal Himself to those of us who would pleased to make His acquaintance?

4)  Argument from evil -- Why all the natural suffering in the World, for so long?  Perhaps god exists, but is a perfectly evil being who allows some good to happen in the world in service of his ultimate evil?

5)  The null hypothesis -- the burden of proof is on those who assert; if you have a new drug that you claim will lower high blood pressure, the FDA is not going to take your claim "on faith".  It is up to you to provide empirical proof of your claim, by disproving the null hypothesis ("no efficacy").

[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.

---

[Edwardo Piet]

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".

That's comparison is completely inaccurate. "Did you stop beating your wife?" is a loaded question. Asking "Do you believe X is improbable?" is not.

You can say as much as you like that you don't like the word improbable... either you believe something is improbable or you don't. Just as either you're a theist or you're not. Or any other true dichotomy.

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.

You also believe they're improbable, you're just pretending not to.

Okay this is irrelevant anyway. Let's pretend you believe they're probable (even though you just said you don't believe in them, but hey you're contradicting yourself so what else am I supposed to think?)

Okay let's pretend you either believe they're probable or you don't believe they're probable but you think their probability is unknown or 50%. Let's pretend that, let's pretend you don't think they're unlikey even though we both know you do.

You still can't claim I'm making the argument from ignorance when you haven't even defined the God I am supposedly denying. Again, when I say "God is highly improbable" what God do you think I'm referring to? I'm referring to a God that really is highly improbable, and that I really do have good reasons to believe such a God is highly improbable. It's disingenuous to pretend that I'm addressing your conception of God when I don't even know what your conception of God is. You have to tell me what your conception of God is, I'm not a mindreader. I'm not saying that until you can prove your God to me I'll consider it improbable by default. I'm saying that if your God is very much like all the other gods that I believe to be improbable for good reasons, then it is. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe your conception of God is more reasonable... but we won't know if you repeatedly refuse to articulate it. I'm going to do my best guess of what your conception of God is, based on all the other Christian conceptions of God I've encountered that are all either improbable or impossible. If you want me to have a better guess than that, then actually articulate your own conception of God and let's see if it's any different.

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.

You really don't understand it do you? Of course it's not fallacious to do that if you actually do have good reasons to believe X is improbable. It's saying that it's fallacious to say X is improbable just because the opposite has failed to prove itself probable. I'm not doing that. I'm using my past experience with Christian conceptions of God to come to the very reasonable assumption, that so far has always been correct, that your conception of God is just as improbable or impossible as all other conceptions of the Christian God that I have faced. And I'm considering it improbable for those reasons.

By saying that disbelief is the null hypothesis, I'm referring to disbelief in specific beliefs. I.e. deities, of course. You're taking what I'm saying completely out of context to assert your own ends. In the case of deities, the null hypothesis is atheism because theism is postulating unnecessary entities without evidence. This does not mean that atheism is true until proven false. It means atheism is probably right because it is the alternative position that doesn't postulate unecessary entities without evidence.

All you're doing here, is taking shit out of context and refusing to define your God all while pretending I'm saying your position is improbable just because you haven't proven it true. I'm not saying that. I'm saying your position is improbable if you believe in a Christian conception of God anything like any of the other Christian conceptions of God I have ever encountered my entire life, which are all improbable for being unparsimonious whilst completely lacking evidence at best, and logically incoherent or logically contradictory at worst.

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).

I assume that your claim is an extraordinary claim if it is anything like any other Christain conception of God, and for the same reasons. How is your conception of God any different? I assume you believe in an all powerful and all knowing being and you have absolutely no evidence of said being? That's highly likely to be improbable until you present any evidence. It's not that you're wrong until you present evidence, it's that postulating any entities without any evidence is less parsimonious and less likely to be true than not.

It's a fundamental law of probability that all other things being equal X + Y is less probable than X. You're more likely to encounter a doctor of any sort than a medical doctor specifically. Because the latter includes both medical doctors and all other kinds of doctors. You're more likely to see a car out on the street than a car that is also red.

You're more likely to encounter no God at all than a God with 1 ability, and you're more likely to encounter a god with 1 ability than 2 abilities, and so on, all things being equal. It's basic parsimony. If you're going to postulate some complex entity with abilities then you need evidence to support that extraordinary claim, so don't pretend that you don't. Atheism doesn't postulate anything. Even strong atheism that outright denies God doesn't postulate any entities. The error there is being absolutely certain about something one doesn't have reason to be absolutely certain about.

I don't have to be absolutely certain that certain entities are improbable to know that they are improbable.

I think you are assuming that I have the same position as you.   

There's your disingenuousness again.

Yes, I am assuming you don't believe in fire-breathing dragons because I'm generously assuuming you're not batshit crazy. What you don't seem to compehend is that you can't on the one hand say you don't say they're improbable and on the other hand say you disbelieve in them. That's a contradiction. Either you believe something is probable or you don't, belief that something is probable is literally tied up with belief.

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.

Once again, it's your fault. For repeatedly refusing to characterize your own position. You're forcing me to do your own legwork for you. I'm here openly and honestly expressing my own position and wanting you to characterize yours so I don't have to make false assumptions about your position... but you're refusing to help me.

If you repeatedly refuse to tell me what your position is, then either I have to do my best guess or simply stop talking to you because you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and that's not a fair discussion.

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.  

I wasn't talking about your God when I said "God is highly improbable". I don't know what your God is, you've refused to tell me.

You keep responding as if I'm talking about your God and saying that you are wrong until you prove yourself right, which I'm not doing, all whilst refusing to actually tell me what your God is. It's a highly dishonest tactic. If you're doing this by accident, then stop it. I'm not saying your God is highly improbable, you won't even tell me what your God is. You can't tell me I'm being irrational for considering a God improbable when you don't even know what God I'm talking abou

I could say "God is impossible" and be talking about a God that is logically contradictory that you don't believe in. It's completely unfair to on the one hand pretend I'm talking about your God and on the other hand refuse to tell me what your God is.

If you provide reason for you claim, then yes, I would agree that is not an argument from ignorance.

I do have reasons for my claim. Just because I haven't provided them doesn't mean I don't have them. Ironically, that's you making the 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.

You don't even know what my claim is, or what it's about, and yet you pretend like you do.

When I say "God is highly improbable" what do you think I mean? Because you're reacting as if that's absurd.

But I could be talking about a God that can make square circles, which is logically impossible, a probability of 0%, as improbable as it gets. So I wouldn't be wrong to say that.

Once again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You are just reacting as if I'm talking about your God, when I can't be, because I don't even know what your God is.

Actually I have just been discussing principles.

And I have been explaining to you why you don't have a complete understanding of the argument from ignorance.

  And I get the feeling (more and more), that we are discussing different things.

Of course we are. I'm talking about all conceptions of God that I consider to be highly improbable and you're knee-jerk reacting as if I'm talking about your God, all while refusing to tell me what your God is.

See, when you say probable, then I think of either mathematical probability (statistics) or logical probability (an inference to the best explanation).

Well you're just giving a narrow defintiion then. Probability refers to all forms of likelihood.

If X is 50% likely to exist, that's the same as if X is 50% probable to exist.

You know what probability means.

  You seem to be arguing against the normal atheist mantra of skepticism, and eliminating it all together as an option.  There doesn't seem to be any room for skepticism in your dichotomy.

See, total strawman you're giving me there. I'm not eliminating any options. For starters, I said God was improbable, not impossible.

But even if I said God was impossible, that would be fine too. Because you still don't know which conceptions of God I'm denying, and yet you're pretending like you do.

[GrandizerII]

RR is disingenuous as fuck. The only reason he says that he doesn't believe fire-breathing dragons are improbable is because he'd have to concede that his god is also improbable if he wishes to be consistent, and he's not going to concede that. That's the key reason why, and we all know it (including RR).

[Jehanne]

If you are making a case, then this is fairly weak in my opinion.

Then we disagree. As you yourself just stated, religious belief is subjective.

[Edwardo Piet]

RR is disingenuous as fuck. The only reason he says that he doesn't believe fire-breathing dragons are improbable is because he'd have to concede that his god is also improbable if he wishes to be consistent, and he's not going to concede that. That's the key reason why, and we all know it (including RR).

He's also trying to pretend that it doesn't count as irrational if he doesn't explicitly claim it lol.

Like, if he secretly believes in dragons, it's okay. It's only a problem when I outright claim God is highly improbable (although hey, if I kept it to myself that would be fine ), and it's perfectly fine for him to jump to all the conclusions he wants about that, and assume I'm talking about his God and assuming it false by default if he can't prove it, despite the fact I can't be talking about his God because he hasn't even articulated what his God is, and he refuses to do so lol.

Like most or all theists, he's just trying to have his cake and eat it too.