Thanks for the response, lets dig into this shall we?
i disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion. It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything per se would be evidence for God's reality. It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence. The former is a truism just as the latter is. The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice.
Except for the problem here is, you would still be assuming something, that god exists or does not exist. Whenever you look at a piece of evidence, you disregard all bias, essentially, whenever I look at a piece of evidence, I am a hard agnostic, and I look at the validity of the evidence that is being presented not rely on some former bias. Essentially I do not presume their is no god, I take the default position that the position with the least amount of assumptions is preferable to the one with more of them. As the evidence i have regarded thus far speaks, there is no valid reason to believe in a god.
I am literally doing what you are saying - to look at the evidence without prejudice, or at least as much as I aware of - I can grant a point for the sake of argument, I can disregard my position if evidence indicative of a god comes forth. My point is - no - just because I do not believe there is a god, that does not mean there is no evidence for a god, simply that I have found none which is compelling to explain a god. There could be, and I have admitted as such, but before I change my mind and take on the mantel of a theist, I would have to actually been presented that evidence.
I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise. That is not true. It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof. I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist. The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better. If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.
You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises. The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms.
I find your conclusion very faulty, a non sequitur if you will, no asking if a god does not imply there is none. It simply means, I have no reason thus far to believe there is one, therefore I am asking you (someone who believes there is a god) if there is any evidence proving the proposition. Anyways to get back to the beginning of this response - yes - in fact if what I believe you are saying is what you think, you are exactly saying this. You claim god is axiomatic, therefore a presupposition (or a true statement simply to be accepted), then you are actually exactly presuming your conclusion - that god exists - in your premise - that god is axiomatic.
Even if the argument what is the inherent axiom - you would have to demonstrate that god true, and therefore to be considered an axiom. Also, the burden of proof would be with the one making the assertion, all I would be asking would be for you to demonstrate god, not the other way around. If a god were to exist, she would be an incredible being, and therefore arguing for her existence would require incredible, extraordinary some might say, evidence. As the level of the claim suggests, I am unconvinced of that claim and am therefore an atheist. Not to say I don't have arguments against the existence of a god, just to say I don't need to present them unless I claim it.
I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason. Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically. Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places. Yet we all fall back to our axioms.
This is most certainly not incorrect, but it is implying something false, the indirect comparison of concluding god an axiom and concluding logic an axiom. Without logic, you could not even reach the position that logic was faulty in the first place, something similar would have to be demonstrated of a god, you would have to prove the axiom-aticy of the god so to speak.
It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment. The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it. The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God. I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not. What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing?
I mean - yes I do see evil in the bible - inherently so - but I do not dismiss the claims of a god on that axiom alone. Note on a debate (I'm actually not sure which one something about god or what not) that I noted that the problem of evil is not a particularly effective argument at refuting the existence of a god. An all-good one god? Well I'm assured that's not the case, but it doesn't convince me that their is no god. What I believe the problem of evil is effective at is fighting against the dogma of religion and faith, you literally assert it is something you presume, without justification. I do not presume the existence or lack of existence of a god, I looked at the evidence and was convinced there was no god. Not the other way around.
What is the difference? Well, I would say cognitive dissonance, dogma, tradition, etc, etc, of the believer, but you could easily point back at me and say the same. No, what I think the difference is that when an atheist looks at the bible, they no longer presume her existence, looking for evidence instead of being blindly convinced by assertions. Let me be crystal clear here: if you do not believe in any god(s) you are an atheist, if you believe in any god(s) you are a theist (or diest). That's really all there is to it. Now, a more proper way to put it might be that we have two different interpretations of the god of the bible, and that would be true, we most certainly do, but then it comes down to the question of who's is more legitimate.
If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly. Something else must be going on.
No, it really isn't, millions of people believed the earth to be flat, millions believed the earth to be in the center of the universe with the sun and the planets revolving around it, millions believed that being gay was evil, millions of people believed lots of things that are incorrect. The number of people who have gotten the evidence wrong has no bearing on whether that evidence is true or not.
I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.
I what I was saying here was that taking an axiomatic position of a god, is the same as admitting a logical fallacy, it was more wit or sarcasm than saying you literally accepted a logical fallacy.
While we may disagree, this is certainly a unique objection, don't take my rebukes as aggressive please, this is nothing more than a response. I don't have anything against you personally or the like, I actually find these objections quite interesting.
