Arguments from ignorance are not always fallacious. Fallacious arguments from ignorance would go something like this: “There is no evidence for X, therefore, X does not exist.” If I had an alligator on my head, I would know if it was true simply by feeling around the top of my head. So, the fact that there is no evidence for an alligator on top of my head is adequate reason to believe that there is no alligator on my head; in other words, “there is no evidence for an alligator on top of my head, therefore, an alligator on top of my head does not exist”. Clearly, in this instance, I am not fallaciously arguing from ignorance.
With belief in God, we are in a similar situation. Whatever evidence we have, if any, for his existence, does not seem to be strong enough to motivate belief in him. This is easily observed by the fact that we see so many non-resistant non-believers in God’s existence; that is, people who have no culpable resistance to believing in God’s existence, but, who are open to the idea of believing in God if there was good evidence and even enter into a personal relationship with him.
Having strong evidence for belief in God far outweighs any negative effects that some theists like to point out. For example, having strong evidence for belief in God’s existence would leave plenty of room for faith, since many fear that with strong or obvious evidence of God’s existence we would no longer need to believe in him by faith. As a married man, I have plenty of faith (trust) that my wife loves me, even though I have strong evidence to believe that she does. I would be no better off with less or weaker evidence to believe that she loves me than if I had more, stronger evidence. So, it appears to me that nothing of value is lost when strong evidence for a phenomenon is available.
Some might also say that strong or obvious evidence for God’s existence would remove our freedom of choice to believe or not believe. Again, good evidence does not take away any valuable kind of freedom. For example, we don’t complain when we go to the doctor and receive strong evidence that we need to make certain lifestyle changes to improve our health and extend our lifespan and quality of life. Is the doctor removing our freedom to believe that we are perfectly healthy when we are not when he shows us the lab results, x-rays, CT scans, etc? No, of course not. The only freedom that good or strong evidence removes is the freedom to believe things irrationally and without good or strong evidence.
