rationalskepticism.org

Wortfish wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
That is presuming a deity exists. The default is atheism. Atheists do not say it does not exist. If you are claiming it does then prove it. There is no evidence for its existence.

The default proposition is that God exists, that a Creator exists.

No, it is not.

Speaking ideally, a proper null hypothesis is a null hypothesis that can at least in principle be refuted with a single observation. The null hypothesis "There is a God" is therefore not a proper null hypothesis, because no single observation could falsify it given how the God hypothesis is usually constructed.

God can choose to hide from us. God does not interact with gravity or electromagnetic radiation. God can do anything He wants. God has a plan that justifies the evils we see in the world. God wanted you to have free will. You have to believe first, only then will God show himself to you. But if God doesn't show himself to you even if you believe, God has a plan for you still. And so on and so forth.

What all these typical theistic rationalizations about God means, is that God has become an unfalsifiable proposition. A practically irrefutable null hypothesis.

So the null hypothesis "There is a God that does not interact with gravity or electromagnetism, can deliberately choose to hide from us using His omnipotent will, and knows all actions and thoughts we will ever have" is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. As such, it can never ever become a proper null hypothesis.

On the other hand, the null hypothesis "There is no God" is easy to refute, as God merely has to work his omnipotent will and make himself appear.

It is up to the atheist to refute the proposition and show that creation does not need a creator.

Calling the world "creation" doesn't mean it is one. That's another unfalsifiable null hypothesis. Whatever property of the world we discover, you will always be able to rationalize away as what the omnipotent creator that is deliberately making himself invisible and works in mysterious ways, wanted creation to be like.

Simply not endorsing the proposition shows indifference. You have to oppose it and falsify it.

No, simply not endorsing a proposition is the proper way to respond to claims that have not met their burden of proof.

If I you and I come upon a jar with a large number of marble balls in it, and I then declare "there is an even number of balls in the jar", you do not have a duty to refute my claim. All you have to do is simply state that my claim has not met it's burden of proof. By not accepting my claim "there is an even number of balls in the jar", you have not somehow taken up the position that there is an odd number of balls in the jar.

So when we disbelieve your claim that there is a God, we are not therefore claiming there is not a God. We have just yet to be convinced.