Which one is it?

Is the following example an argument from ignorance or a false dichotomy fallacy or something else?

Person A: why do you believe in God?

Person B: We have no proof that God isn't real, so I default to believing that he is.

This is a classic argument from ignorance since the conclusion is based on ignorance (i.e., ignorance of proof God is not real rather than proof or evidence that he is). I suspect, however, that nobody would every actually believe in something for this reason, which can be demonstrated by asking them about the existence of other gods, unicorns, Bigfoot, Russel's teapot, green cheese on the moon, or anything else that has never been proven not to exist. They will quickly realize they have other reasons that they believe in God.

Hi, Hilzar!

I'm not so quick to assume that Person B is committing a fallacy. The language used by Person B to express his belief in God is worth paying careful attention to. He considers his belief to be a default position, and claims that he is justified in not giving up this default position because there is no proof to the contrary.

It sounds like Person B is describing what is known in epistemology as a properly basic belief. A full account for what a properly basic belief is, is still a matter of some work. Essentially, a properly basic belief is a belief that is not arrived at through making inferences or arguments, and is grounded in immediate experience or comprehension, or is a belief that is foundational to a system of knowledge. In the absence of any defeaters to a properly basic belief, a person is entirely justified to maintain that belief and would actually be irrational to not maintain that belief.

Relating this topic to your post, A properly basic belief is not arrived at through inference from other propositions or argumentation from other beliefs. A fallacy can only be committed in the course of an inference or argument. If Person B has a properly basic belief in God's existence—some non-inferential or underived belief grounded in experience—then he does not, indeed cannot, commit any fallacy in the course of believing that God exists along the lines stated in your post, let alone a fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Furthermore, citing the absence of proof (or, broadly speaking, citing the absence of defeaters) against his belief would justify him in proceeding to maintain that God exists and it would actually be irrational for him to give up his properly basic belief in God's existence.

In sum, based on the language used by Person B, it can be argued that Person B is entirely rational in his address to Person A. I encourage you, Hilzar, to dig deeper into your question by researching properly basic beliefs and discussions in epistemology in regards to whether the belief in God is properly basic.

Thank you,

From Kaiden