The problem is that there are two lots of positive assertions being made.
So would you consider the prosecutor and defendant of a legal case to both be making positive assertions?
Sometimes. If a prosecutor states that the defendant has broken the law and the defendant says I do not have the capacity of forming the intent to break the law. Then the burden falls firstly on the prosecutor, but then once the defendant raises this point which they are legitimately expected to do - then the burden shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant. I think the same thing applies in a manner in this particular discussion. Theists (although I think the reverse is more true) raise God. Then the atheist says - I have seen no evidence for God, therefore, the burden shifts - because the atheist is asserting positively that they have a standard they using to measure the existence or non-existence of God.
So are you saying if I am accused of murder right now, walk into court and say (I quote from you, highlighted words being what I changed) "I have seen no evidence for me committing murder", the response I would receive from the judge would be "The burden shifts - because you are asserting positively that the prosecutor have a standard they using to measure the existence or reality of you innocence."
This is complete jargon. The law always fundamentally works under the statement "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In no recognised legal system do I have bear the burden for proving something of which I have been accused of doing. I am always innocent until the prosecutor can prove otherwise. I do not need to defend myself if my opponent doesn't make an evidence based claim.
In response to my excellent invisible dwarf analogy, tradesecret stated:
People do not make dwarves the center of their universe.
The importance of a being does not equate to it's validity. By your flawed logic, if I rallied up my dwarf believing friends and drilled it into them that the dwarfs created the universe, would that then mean they are real? Just because you believe your God is (without testable evidence) the centre of the universe, doesn't mean it is. (Just like how if I believed these dwarves were the centre of my universe, that wouldn't make them any more real)
God is not in the same category as santa clause or imaginary creatures.
Actually, Santa clause is an excellent person to bring up right about now. If I told you santa was real, and you said "there's no evidence", would it then be valid to say "You have made a positive assertion and the BoP has therefore shifted".
God is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around God. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with God is an absurdity.
Notice the words I have highlighted.
Allah is a completely different matter. People all around the world place their lives into his hands everyday. They build entire philosophies and doctrines and religions around Allah. They don't do this with imaginary creatures as such - oh yes there is the Yedis or whatever they are called - but this is completely a mock religion in any event. And it started of in such a manner. To equivocate that with Allah is an absurdity.
If you switch the word "God" around with any other God from any other religion, the impact of you statement is still present, just directed from a different religion. If you want to truly prove God's existence, you need to find logic and reasoning which demonstrates that it is superior to other religions, instead of just vague statements of which can be applied to any religion.
Besides this point, the actual arguments being made aren't good either. Just because there are doctrines (I assume you mean the bible) written about a cause, it doesn't mean it is automatically true, especially not the bible, a book of which has at least 3 errors on the very first page.
I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative.
You are a very confusing person. The above is exactly correct. It is impossible for me to disapprove of your God if you do not first provide some evidence for me to debunk. But alas, you go on.
Yet, this is not what atheists are doing. In your case of an invisible dwarf, that is a negative thing. In the case of God, there is oodles of proof, it is not the amount of proof, nor the extent of it, it is the understanding and interpretation of it that is the issue.
Oodle of proof? Where? Please, and this is genuine, if you really have evidence, atheists are more than happy to hear it.
The person who believes in invisible dwarves does not say - everything proves its existence.
Really? Is this an issue? I can easily add that to my analogy. Let's assume from now on that everything does in fact prove it's existence.
p1. If I said that the nature of humanity is evidence, would you accept it? No.
p2. If I said the existence of evil is evidence? Would you accept that?
p3. If I said the existence of the universe is evidence, would you accept that? No.
p4. If I said that the existence of absolutes is evidence. Would you accept that? No.
p5. If I argued from first causes? Would you accept that? No.
p6. If I argued from the probability that evolution is impossible would you accept that? No.
p7. No. If I argued from the ontological position, would you accept that? No.
p1. You need to evaluate your point, but I can already foresee where it is going.
p2. I would say the opposite because of the "problem of evil", a strong case against an omni God. Nevertheless, I would like to hear why you believe evil is evidence of God.
p3. You would have to evaluate, though I can say, scientific evidence has shown how the universe most likely came about.
p4. Nothing is absolute.
p5. Nothing came from something.
p6. For you to think that probability is an issue regarding evolution shows you do not understand it. Evolution is a very simple thing which makes use of "survival of the fittest". I fail to see how this is an issue. In fact, I could use this argument against God, the fact that God is a very complicated being.
Overall, I would be happy to hear about all your arguments, except for the ontological position because, though it does have a fancy name, is quite poor.
Do you see the issue? Everything put up as evidence - and indeed even in isolation or as a totality the evidence is there. But this is not enough for you. You are not using a standard of on the balance of probabilities. you are not even using beyond reasonable doubt - your standard of evidence is way above what is acceptable in any sense of a proper test of evidence. You are asking for a standard where there are no lingering doubts - or indeed something of such persuasive weight that you have no alternative position.
The issue is that no evidence has been provided, although there is another fundamental issue you have made, so I will clarify one point. There is a difference between evidence and assumption. Take the following example.
If we time travelled 400 years back in time and dropped off an iphone, what reaction do you think will be caused. Obviously, this piece of everyday tech would become magical. How could these people explain these small slim screens? This is when one person suggests God. Clearly, since there is no other way it must be God.
Though it may be logically sound for these people that God dropped the phone off, from our perspective, that would be incorrect. My point here is that even though there seems to be no other option, providing a logically sound proposal without evidence is not productive. If one really wanted to believe that God dropped of the phone, evidence would have to be provided. Is there a note? Was there a sighting? Are these credible witnesses? Can these people undergo questioning?
Essentially this is how religion first manifested. People had questions and no answers. What's the solution? God. How did the universe begin? I dunno, God I guess. How did humans come onto the planet? I dunno, God I guess. How old is the planet? 10 000. Why? I dunno, God I guess. Just because it seems "logical" that God is the reason for all these things, as evidence cannot be provided, being "logically sound" is no use.
Actually I know of several Muslims who claim that Jesus has saved them - and become Christians. Although they don't tell their family because they are fearful of being killed.
Perhaps I didn't word myself well. As you place so much emphasis on "sightings", explain why Muslims see the Allah at all? Explain why Greeks saw Thor? Explain why Egyptians saw Osiris?
