Game - Battleground God

I bit one bullet, but had no direct hits. I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.Here is their response:

quote:

---

You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

​

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

---

I was thinking in terms of the argument to ignorance fallacy.argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comOh well. Fun game, Razd.

Hmm, I wish I could take that answer back. Now that I think twice about the question, it is irrational to think the Loch Ness monster exists. I, for one, do not believe the Loch Ness monster exists, but I had difficulty abandoning the argument to ignorance. Moreover, can the analogy be stretched to God(s)?The Loch Ness monster was (is) believed to reside in Loch Ness, an area "extending approximately 37km". If there exists any supernatural entity which we can call God, would we be complacent to look in an area that stretches 37km, and determine that if God were very likely real, that they would reside in a 37km area?I understand both have been looked for repeatedly, and no independently constructed, verifiable data has surfaced, but the analogy still leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Haha, indeed. It was logically consistent but strange, for, again, I just had a hard time betraying the argument to ignorance. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, never have, from what I can remember, but, as I said in my previous post, I felt the analogy from the Loch Ness Monster to God(s) wasn't very applicable.I guess this fallacy has its own shades of gray. Under certain circumstances, it's not very reasonable.