Whether or not you take the idea seriously is irrelevant. The conclusion still stands; garage dragons do not exist by definition.
And do you see the circularity inherent in that kind of reasoning?
You’re picking up something that, as you say, does not exist by definition; then you’re implicitly likening this non-existent thing to something whose existence is under discussion; and you’re concluding, by means of this spurious analogy, that that other something, whose existence is under discussion, also does not exist.
That’s just a sleight of hand, that’s simply begging the issue!
The flaw in this argument is the implicit equivalence drawn between this non-existent dragon, and whatever it is whose existence we’re discussing. That equivalence is something you’re taking for granted, and that is why I say you’re begging the issue.
I’m not claiming Gods exist, not for a minute. I’m merely pointing out that that implicit argument is flawed.
Except that a lack of evidence where evidence would be expected is, indeed, evidence of absence - which leads to hard atheism.
Oh? And what evidence do you expect of this dragon, that you lack?
Since you’re the one claiming that this dragon does not exist -- not you personally, I’m speaking of the stance of the hard atheist -- then surely it is on you that the burden lies to provide the necessary proof? (In as much, that is, as science can actually “prove” anything, that goes without saying.)
And that burden of proof includes the burden of devising adequate experiments (whether of the white-lab-coat variety, or of the plain-observation kind, or even simply a thought-experiment) for proving this.
If you cannot prove that your dragon does not exist -- either because you cannot devise the necessary experiments, or for whatever other reasons -- then you must not make that claim in the first place (if, that is, you care to be reasonable).
So no, a “hard atheist” position about Sagan’s dragon is flawed.
But no one splits hairs in this way over the dragon. Why not? Simply because this is a ridiculous figure of fun, which no one in their right mind takes remotely seriously. We’re not splitting hairs, because we don’t care for precision here. We don’t care for precision here, because no one is taking this object seriously. No one is taking this object seriously, because it is, as you say, non-existent simply by definition.
Thus, the equivalence of this dragon with gods is predicated not so much on any logical principle (like not proving a negative, or whatever else) but simply on the fact that this ridiculous construct does not ‘deserve’ the effort that precision requires. That, compounded with the absurdity of this dragon, which absurdity we’re actually seeking to implicitly supplant on this god idea that we’re discussing, without taking the effort to clearly explain why the latter idea is ridiculous.
All the arguments here are implicit. We’re pretending to put forward a logical argument, when in fact our actual arguments are simply rhetorical. A sleight of hand, even.
I’m not saying the dragon analogy is worthless, obviously. I haven’t researched Carl Sagan’s actual context for saying this, but I recognize that this analogy pushes us to examine beliefs that we tend to take for granted. But I don’t think this analogy was designed to act as a blanket argument that is impervious to nuance. (Or if it is -- someone who has seen all of those old shows of his, or someone who may have actually researched Carl Sagan, can probably tell us that with authority -- then I’m afraid it fails.) Nuance dictates the necessity for precision at some times, even as that precision is unnecessary at other times.
As for why it is that I’m saying that gods “deserve” the effort that precision entails, whereas figures of fun like this dragon don’t, that is a legitimate question. I have already put forward my reasons, more than once, but not to you personally; so if you wish to discuss those reasons, and do not care to troll thought my past posts here to uncover them, then please ask, and I’ll be happy to state them again for you.
All gods fall into either one of two categories: they are either garage dragons, such as the undetectable "unmoved first mover", or they are not.
Okay.
In the case of them being garage dragons, they do not exist by definition;
I don’t agree. That is something you need to show. That is exactly the very thing we’re discussing, whether certain ideas might exist. You can’t “discuss” it by directly assuming, right off the bat, that they don’t exist. That’s textbook begging the question.
Sure, you may choose not to engage with this discussion. That is a separate matter, and speaks to your personal choice, which you’re obviously free to make.
The dragon does not exist by definition. It is clearly fiction, thought up by Carl Sagan. To say that the same applies to gods also, that is simply taking an unsupported, ipse dixit view.
If we are to give to the dragon the same precision that we accord to Gods -- or at least, that we *may* accord to Gods if we so wish -- then a hard atheist position would be untenable for this dragon as well.
As for why Gods deserve this precision that the poor dragon doesn’t, that takes me back to what I’ve already said: I’ve discussed this already, and you could, if you wish, check my earlier posts. Or else you could, if you prefer, ask me, and I’ll be happy to state them again for you.
in the case of the latter, any argument for their existence is, at best, bare assertion, and is therefore discarded.
In other words, not accepted for want of evidence. I agree. That is the soft atheist’s position.
Gods don't get special treatment in this regard.
Actually they do. That is clearly fact. That can be easily ascertained by seeing what kind of “treatment” people give to Gods, vis-a-vis dragons. What you’re probably trying to say, is that Gods *shouldn’t*, in your view, get this special treatement.
I disagree. I think they should. And we can further discuss my reasons for thinking this if such a discussion would interest you.
Bare assertion isn't enough to force us to admit the possibility of Santa Claus. It certainly isn't enough to force us to admit the possibility of gods.
No one is “forcing” anyone to admit anything. Anyone can think and believe whatever they like, irrespective of whether that is reasonable. But I take your point. And I’m afraid I disagree with your underlying implicit argument. I disagree with the implicit equivalence you’re slipping in here with Santa Claus (as well as Sagan’s pet dragon) on the one hand, and gods on the other hand. And I’m happy to discuss my disagreement further with you if you wish.
The garage dragon's existence is every bit as consequential as the existence of any undetectable gods. That is the point.
If Sagan had actually did believe in the dragon, and if we were inclined to humor him by seriously discussing this with him, then yes, it would be. In that case the dragon’s existence would be in the same category of importance as that of God’s.
And yes, when I say “importance”, I’m referring to the importance of this subject to us, that is, whether the subject is important enough that we are willing to put in the effort necessary for that kind of precision, and therefore the kind of hair-splitting that that kind of precision entails.
*This* is the real point, whether it is important enough (to *us*, we who are discussing this) to warrant this kind of precision, and therefore this kind of hairsplitting.
