The burden of proof (revisited)
Not long ago, I put my original post about the burden of proof on reddit.com . The comments were... surprising to me. However, as I respect the /r/Atheism crowd (they know more than I do), I feel obligated to address their criticism. Before anything else, I admit that we can construct a deity that might exist. The agnostic atheist position is correct for that reason. "If you can't even define it, discussion or belief seem pointless." In my original post, I used the dictionary definition of 'god' God 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. I insist this definition of 'god' has evidence against it. We can accept the burden of proof and demonstrate this 'creator and ruler of the universe' doesn'