I do not allow for their possibility because their is not an iota of objective, reality-based evidence for any of these figments of human imagination. I prefer to live in the world of reality:
But let's examine this again in terms of the "appeal to possibility" . First, let's take a look at the description given in the website that was cited in the OP: "When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable."
Look at that last phrase: "...because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE."
I'm not going to go back and search for your exact words, but it does seem to me that they were very close to that phraseology in regards to your claim that a "God" "is possible".
Yes, lets look at the description: "
When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable."
"
When a conclusion is assumed" -- do you understand what it means to assume a conclusion? It means, as the logical forms bear out, that the conclusion is assumed to be true (or probably true) and not just possibly true.
So, again, you're using this logical fallacy wrong.
What I have argued shouldn't be controversial. I have argued things like,
"If it's possible, then it's not true that it can't exist"
The logical form of that statement would be something like, "If X then -(-X)"
That isn't a logical contradiction and your Appeal to Possibility in no way makes the claim that it's a fallacy.
Again, I;m concentrating on the description and not the examples, we can do that later.
Tell me, given that description, how your claim that a god or gods "is possible but highly improbable" is not an appeal to possibility. I have to tell you, that sure sounds like an appeal to possibility that fits right into the given description.
It's "possible, but highly improbable" that I will ever win the lottery. You are claiming that statement is an appeal to possibility fallacy and that it's not possible to win the lottery?
But then you state that your particular claim does not conform to the examples given. I have already said that those two examples are probably not all that there are or could be.
Of course not. But you realize that both of the examples follow the logical forms? Do you think that is coincidence?
But you go on to say that what you are claiming that your version is: " If a god or gods are possible, then a god or gods are possible" or "if a god or gods is possible, then a god or gods is not impossible". How is that not classic circular reasoning: it is because it is! And that's what believers always say about their God--he is because I have faith that he is.
Er...I don't think you understand what circular reasoning is.
X, therefore X
and
X, therefore -(-X)
are not examples of circular reasoning.
I would say that they aren't very interesting statements and should be fairly obvious.
Circular reasoning would be something like:
If A then B
If B then A
If the thunder god is pissing, rain happens.
You see! It's raining! If it's raining, the thunder god must be pissing!
So to summarize, you are welcome to continue to give the agnostic-based argument that a god or gods "is possible", but that appears to me to be a classic appeal to possibility. I prefer to stick to an appeal to evidence.
I really wish you had the capacity to truly examine the arguments that you're making. Good luck!
