AD IGNORANTIUM: Considered a flaw in reasoning, an ad ignorantium argument appeals to ignorance, as it were. One commits this error if, after failing to find evidence that a claim is true, one appeals to ignorance by concluding the claim is false, or vice versa: There is no evidence of X (or -X). Therefore, -X (or X).

On another board I occasionally visit, there was a huge discussion and series of arguments about the existence of God. The discussion, I believe, was mostly respectful of people's beliefs whether they were believers or not.

Anyway, one of the series of arguments was that something could be held to be true unless proven to be false. And that series of arguments bothered me.

Tonight I was reading an online lexicon and came across arguments 'ad ignorantium' and really liked the definition I posted above. It seems that this covers my problem with those who argued on the other board that one cannot argue against the existence of God without proving that God does not exist. I thought: Well, just to say that God must exist because the other side cannot prove that God doesn't exist doesn't make sense either.

I mention this, not to pull us into arguments for or against the existence of God--especially since this board avoids discussions of religion--but to ask whether the 'ad ignorantium arguments' are fallacious in this case because an argument for or against has been proposed without evidence either way. In other words, without evidence for or against the existence of God, God's existence cannot be proven or disproven, and any arguments without evidence either way would be instances of arguments ad ignorantium.

Have I correctly grasped this concept of 'ad ignorantium' or not?

Thanks for any insights.