Atheists, Not Christians, Are Guilty Of Making An Argument From Ignorance

This is one of the things that I do not understand about the logic of the atheists' position.  Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.  Atheists, including my friend Andrew, try and say that, therefore, Christians are making an "argument from ignorance."  An argument from ignorance is where a person argues that because you cannot disprove something, it must exist.  In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."  Yet, there are two issues with this thinking: (a) this is NOT what most theists argue, and (b) if an atheist were to put the shoe on the other foot, they would realize that THEY are the ones who are really making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.

First, Christians do NOT argue that because an atheist cannot disprove that God exists it is, therefore, rational for us to believe in God.  No, instead we provide what we believe to be very rational bases for a belief in God. We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.

I can tell you why I believe in God... yet, I have a hard time ever pinning an atheist down as to why they do not believe in God.  Rather, the consistent refrain I hear from atheists is, "you cannot prove it scientifically, therefore, it must not exist."  Which brings us to the second and most important point. Namely, it is the atheist who is guilty of making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.  If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.  

Andrew, you say that I have not answered your questions. I believe, actually, that I have and that you have yet to answer any of my more basic arguments.  For example, explain to me:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently?   

Andrew the Atheist answers, "Maybe it's Thor!"

It's taken me a long time to reply.  That's because I have three drafts that will not be used.  I have to say, Tim, I'm really disappointed.  This question is exactly the kind of apologetic nonsense I wanted to avoid.  Not because I can't answer it, but because it has been answered SOOOOOO many times before.  All I do is repeat the same stuff you can find with a quick google search on any of these "evidences".  You should try www.talkorigins.org.  I think they talk about this too.

Look, the reason I asked how much you knew about apologetics was so that we could move past this.  I was hoping you were already familiar with this and wouldn't be interested in going over it again.  I'm FAR more interested in what you believe, and why.  This is NOT why you believe there is a god.  This is at best an excuse you give for holding beliefs on faith rather than science. 

What I mean by that is you obvioulsy recognize the superior nature of science to explain the universe than faith.  Why else do you look for science-like things to support your position?  But even if ALL your evidence is TRUE, that does not mean that believing in god is rational.

Your argument is bad logic, and you seem to know it.  It is an argument from ignorance, just as you suggest.  The argument from ignorance fallacy is NOT that if the atheist cannot disprove god, then god must exist.  That fallacy shifts the burden of proof from the one making the claim to the one considering the claim.  The argument from ignorance states that if I have no answer for how the univere began, then it is rational to assume a god or diety is the reason the universe began.  That IS indeed the argument you make, and that is why it fails before you even state it fully.

There was an interview on Bill O'Riley's show between O'Riley and Dave Silverman of American Atheists.  Bill said, "Tide goes in; tide goes out.  YOU can't explain that."  To which Dave exclaimed, "Maybe it's THOR!"  "You can't explain it," Bill repeats.  Dave replied, "I don't have to."

See there are two big logical problems here.  First, you make the argument from ignorance and fill the gaps of knowledge with god.  But there is a second flaw here:  Once you open the possibility to the supernatural, ANY supernatural answer will do.

Let's say I concede.  I don't, really, but let's say for the sake of argument that I do.  We'll look past the first error.  So we are looking for a creator.  How do you determine which creator it is?  Was it Zeus, Jupiter, chtulu, a giant space turtle, a huge world tree, the flying spaghetti monster, Brahma, Odin, a magic bunny, leprechauns, pixies, invisible pick unicorn, Tiamat, etc?  How can you tell the difference?  If you could use this design argument for the existence of other gods, is it really that good of an argument?  If we could end up with the flying spaghetti monster as the creator, is that really the argument that supports the christian position?

See, if you say there is a creator, you really haven't answered anything.  We come back to faith, not evidence.  How would you make the existance of your god more likely than the existance of another?  Keep in mind that christians within themselves cannot come to a consistant description of who or what god is.  When you figure out how to prove the Westboro Baptists are worshiping the wrong god, please give them a call.  Convince them that they have gotten the wrong deity.  When you can do that, I'll be impressed.  Until then, you have at best a stalemate within your own religion.  We haven't even gotten to flying spaghetti monsters.

Look, Tim.  You can go to hundreds of places and get this debate anywhere.  That's not what I thought this blog was going to be about.  I thought we were going to discuss the REASONS why people believe and do not believe.  That is really interesting to me.  This argument is NOT why you believe.  This is an excuse you hide behind when people ask you why you believe.  It may fool another believer, but it won't fool me.

I expect better of you next time, Tim.

Oh, and to all you commenters, I'd encourage all of you to ignore the troll.  We had a good thing going here before the troll came and this question, but I am still hopefull we can turn it around.  The troll must be very busy, as it has become apparent he has confused me with some "other" Andrew the Atheist.  I must attempt to find this other dude, so I can return his troll to him.