After examining all Deadlocks' posts in connection to this thread and other thread “The acceptance of intangibility,” it seemed that his Appeal to Ignorance occurred because of an incorrect understanding of who has the burden of proof. Suppose I claim “People should accept the intangible feeling of God's presence because they have accepted their same intangible feeling of emotions.” You’d then rightly say to me, “Prove it!” If I want to make that claim, I have to provide proof. I can’t just say, “Well, prove to me there isn’t!” Because that would make the default position something like “Accept everything until you have reason not to.”

Imagine that for a moment, and you’ll realize how crazy that would be: People could claim all sorts of ridiculous things, and we’d all be walking around accepting them because no one had proved them wrong yet. How could you prove, for example, that there isn’t a Deity who manifests in the deepest part of the universe — especially if I told you The Deity has never been seen and He transcends in higher realms that are beyond our observable universe, that humans will never be able to detect Him with whatsoever instruments.

The far more reasonable default position is “Don’t accept a claim until you have good reason to accept it.” And that’s exactly the position that is established by putting the burden of proof on the person making the claim. So, just because a claim hasn’t been proven to be false, it doesn’t mean it’s true. Conversely, just because a claim hasn’t been proven to be true, it doesn’t mean it’s false. When there is insufficient proof one way or the other, one should suspend judgment.