First Rebuttal

by Daniel Adams

Burden of Proof

Mr. Guthrie in his last post made the point that I as an atheist am making a positive claim that God does not exist. This is true. However, every single action we take is based upon belief. I believe that I exist, but ultimately there is no vidence to support that claim. I would not be able to tell the difference if I were in fact a brain in jar being fed neural impulses. The fact is that this makes no difference whatsoever. Theists posit a belief in Go, They must therefore provide evidence for that belief since they are the positive claimants. It is not up to me, disputing the claim, to disprove it. If Mr Guthrie fails to prove that God exists, it is reasonable for us to accept that he does not. I will here give you two analogies if you are still in doubt about the "positive claim" argument.

(i) I charge you with rape. Are you guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent. No, you are innocent until I, the positive claimant, can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Parralell: God does not exist until the theist, the positive claimant, proves that he is.

(ii) Mr Guthrie claims that Gos exists unless I can prove otherwise. This is an irrational claim. Along the same reasonong, I hereby posit a belief in a giant pink gnome who, whilst invisible, has infinite power. DO you see the problem? Whilst such a belief is clearly ludicrous, there is no way that you can disprove it. Parralell: Do you refuse to accept that the gnome exists? Why? Because you require proof. Hence, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. That is the theist

Mr Guthrie states that there is" NO GOOD EVIDENCE TO FAVOR ATHEISM AS TRUE". There is an overwhelming plethora of evidence for atheism, yet it is not necessary. If the theist fails to provide proof for his claim (that God exists), then we accept by default that God does not exist.

At the behest of Mr Guthrie, however, I will provide just one argument for the time being which supports atheism. That is the problem of evil. Let us assume for the moment that there is a God. By our very definition of a God, he would be omnipotent (meaning infinitely powerful) and also all-loving. Why, then is there death and pain in the World. We are left with only two options...

(i)God is not capable of stopping the death and pain. If this is true he is not a God, since he is not all powerful

(ii) God is capable of stopping the death and pain but doesn't want to. God wants us to suffer? If so, then he is evil and not to be worshipped.

If you reject these two options then you must accept that out original hypotheses - that God exists - must be false. In other words, God does not exist.