Burden of Proof FAQ

A Religious Apologist argues that my opinion of his arguments for God's existence is not enough - I must validate my perspective that the existence of God is unlikely. This demonstrates the Apologist does not understand the concepts of burden of proof, or verification, or faith.  

Perhaps the most famous example of burden of proof was provided by Bertrand Russell... 

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

And a good overview of burden of proof can be found here


INTRODUCTION

Some examples which illustrate the concept:

• Person A claims God exits, the burden of proof is on Person A.
• Person B does not believe the claim from Person A, the burden of proof is still on Person A.
• Person B claims God does not exist, the burden of proof is on Person B.

• Stephen Hawking claims the universe had a quantum origin as described in M-Theory, so the burden of proof is on Hawking.
• A Creationist doesn't believe M-Theory, the burden of proof is still on Hawking.
• A Creationist claims M-Theory is wrong, the burden of proof is on the Creationist.

Here's a list of questions about Burden of Proof, faith & verification from a Christian Apologist (and I promise I haven't made these up)...

1 Your position that there is/are no god/gods relies on speculation and ignores evidence.

1a This statement begins with a fallacious straw man because that's not my position. I have an opinion that the existence of gods is extremely unlikely but they could exist. I am not stating that there is no God. I am not stating that there are no gods. 

1b My opinion that gods are unlikely comes entirely from the weakness of the arguments that are used to support the hypothesis that a god or gods exist.  

1c My opinion that the existence of gods is unlikely does not come from the strength of scientific explanations for the existence of universes, rainbows, earthquakes, plagues, or any natural phenomenon explained by science.  

1d It would be interesting to know what the evidence is that's being ignored. Christian Apologists are reluctant to provide this evidence when asked!

2 You believe that all religion is nothing more than superstition and a misunderstanding of the way the mechanics of the universe operate, and you draw conclusions from that.

2a This statement begins with a fallacious straw man argument. There is an element of superstition to the mainstream religions (nearly all religions in fact), but religion provides a lot of benefits that have nothing to do with superstitions or indeed God. So religion is a lot more than just superstition, delusion and misunderstanding.

2b My opinion regarding the existence God does not come from religion. My opinion that the existence of God is unlikely comes entirely from the weakness of the arguments that are used to support the hypothesis that God exists. These arguments come from philosophers and religious apologists, not from religion itself which simply assumes a god or gods exist.

3 You state that there are no gods with at least 95% faith. You assert that there is/are no god/gods based on a 95-97% surety per your own admission.  

3a This is another fallacious straw man argument because I have never made any such statement or assertion. In my opinion, the existence of a god or gods is highly unlikely but not impossible. It is also not a position of faith – it is a position of doubt.

3b If I had to measure my level of confidence in the existence of a god or gods it would be around 95% but it can vary between 80% and 97% depending who is making the arguments, and for which god(s).  That's how I answer the question of my belief in gods should anyone ask, but it is not an assertion. 

3.1 If you are quite sure that god/s don't exist, then does your worldview require the universe to not be constructed by god/s?

3.1.a A faithless worldview does not require the universe to be constructed in a certain way. For one thing, we can't assume the universe is "constructed."  

3.1.b Logically speaking, if Person A proposes that X created the universe, but they can't demonstrate that X exists,  then it is not surprising if Person B considers such an explanation unlikely (unless they use faith to believe it). X could be a god, or a quantum fluctuation, or a singularity, or a race of aliens in another universe, or colliding branes, etc. 

3.2 Google the matter yourself - there is no dearth of arguments for God's existence from just about any perspective that one might choose! 

3.2.a Very true. And so far I've been unable to find anything convincing. The arguments seem to be either purely inductive, or fallacious, or both.  

3.3 You reject theistic explanations because you find them "unconvincing" or based on "weak" arguments. 

3.3.a It is true that theistic explanations are unlikely because they are based on inductive arguments which are also flawed, and I find such arguments unconvincing. But my approach is not limited to "theistic arguments" - it applies to any claim. The person making a claim - any claim - has the burden of proof.  

  

4 You have stated that it is only natural for Bronze Age humans to see a "god or gods" as being responsible for natural phenomena.

4a True. And not just gods but also fairies, demons, sprites, pixies, gremlins... et.  And not just in the Bronze Age. It is part of human nature. It can be argued that not believing in such entities is unnatural.

5 You say I can't demonstrate that fairies don't exist but that is irrelevant.

5a It's extremely relevant because being unable to demonstrate the non-existence of fairies illustrates the concept of burden of proof, and illustrates why it is not possible for someone to demonstrate that a god or gods do not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the listener.

6 Fairies are irrelevant to the existence of an intelligent entity that created our universe

6a A false statement because one could argue that fairies created the universe and that would suddenly make them relevant! But the problem here is the introduction of the creation of the universe into the argument. The debate was about the existence of a god or gods – not the creation of the universe.

6b If I claim our universe could have been created naturally, the burden of proof is on me, and I am obliged to present the deductive arguments, validation and evidence which support that claim. But even if I could demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that God was not necessary for our universe to be created, that does not demonstrate that God does not exist!

6c There are probably some atheists who say that scientific explanations of reality provide evidence that gods do not exist, but I don't agree with that point of view. In my opinion, anyone who states that a scientific theory for the creation of the universe (or any theory come to that) can disprove God, is mistaken. There are no theories that there is/are no god/gods and there never can be.

6d A natural explanation for the creation of our universe means that the existence of a god or god is not necessary for the creation of our universe. It does not mean that a god or god is not necessary. The same logic applies to any phenomenon. A god or gods could still exist and might be necessary for explaining other phenomena such as the existence of the multiverse. 

6.1 Fairies are not analogous to God

Yes they are, in the sense that they are both unfalsifiable. 

7 I am claiming that there is more to reality than "naturalism" and you have as much to prove as I do.

7a This is true in that we both have to prove (or at least demonstrate to a reasonable level of confidence) the claims we make.

7b You are claiming the existence of a range of supernatural entities, but this claim is just a hypothesis that has not been tested, has no deductive arguments to support it and is also unsupported by evidence. Therefore I find the existence of these supernatural beings to be very unlikely (but not impossible).

7c If I provide a natural explanation for a phenomenon, I have to first explain whether that explanation is a hypothesis or a theory. Then I have to describe the evidence and arguments which support the hypothesis, and if it's a theory I have to explain how it was validated. 

8 I am waiting for you to validate your viewpoint that God does not exist

8a You will be waiting a long time! First of all my viewpoint has been misrepresented - is that God might exist, but is unlikely. My viewpoint is not a claim, hypothesis or theory. It is an opinion which is based on the weakness of the claim that God exists.

9 If the Christian Apologist position rests on evidence, why do you choose to ignore and/or dismiss it out of hand?

9a The problem is that no evidence is being presented, so there are two flaws in the question:

9b The Christian Apologist position does not rest on evidence, or any kind of robust argument. It rests on inductive arguments, which form a hypothesis, which is believed to be true (therefore requiring faith).

9c Far from ignoring and dismissing Religious Apologist inductive arguments, I have provided detailed refutations of every argument I've been presented with.

9.1 How can you ignore the four specific categories of evidence (anecdotal, testimonial and statistical, analogical) defined by Zachary Seech in his book "Writing Philosophy Papers"?

Far from ignoring them, I think we should use them! Sadly, I have yet to see any evidence for God presented in any of those categories. 

9.2 If God is defined as being an intelligent entity responsible for the creation and maintenance of the universe, my evidence supports that type of being.

Defining God to be X does not demonstrate that God exists. And defining something as being a thing responsible for the cause of something is just a circular argument. As for the evidence, until it is presented I have to assume there is no evidence. To assume such evidence exists without it being presented would require faith, which I don't have. 

9.3 How can you be sure there is no evidence for intelligent guidance in the universe's affairs?

One can't be absolutely sure of anything. It's possible that reality is part of some pre-programmed and controlled computer simulation, or that gods interfere and guide in the affairs of the universe. Nothing can be ruled out. But there is currently no evidence to support the idea, and no way to verify such a hypothesis.   

10 Present your scientific theory for the creation of the universe, and explain how this theory leads you to the conclusion that the existence of a god or gods is unlikely.

10a There are several hypotheses for the creation of the universe, and the most robust in my opinion is M-Theory. But there are several other explanations, including God and gods and other supernatural beings.

10b Scientific explanations for the creation of the universe do not lead me to the conclusion that the existence of a god or gods is unlikely. My opinion regarding the existence of gods comes entirely from the arguments provide by Religious Apologists. It does not – and cannot – come from science.

11 The atheist bears the burden of proof in making the claim, “God does not exist.”

11a If someone asserts "God does not exist" then they do indeed have the burden of proof. It depends how we define "atheist".  Many make no such claim.  Rather, they are being presented with a claim that God exists, and they don't find that claim convincing.

11b In any case, the claim for God came before anyone refuted it (obviously). No one ever said "God does not exist" without first having been told about God.

11c It is easy to illustrate the point by asking religious apologists to bear the burden of proof for the non-existence of fairies (see point 5).

12 You are pretending that your position is merely "disbelief" when there's more to it than that. 

12a No I'm not! See 1b

12.1 Your logic is analogous to a person who believes that the earth is flat claiming that s/he "disbelieves" that the earth is round and that therefore the entire burden of proof rests with you to prove otherwise.

12.1a No it isn’t.  If I find the claim of a flat earth unlikely, the burden of proof is with the flat earther. If I claim the earth is a globe, the burden of proof is on me. If a flat earther disbelieves my claim that the earth is a globe, then the burden of proof is indeed with me.

12.1b Note that the flat vs round earth argument is not analogous to the argument for God’s existence (or fairies) argument, because the shape of the earth is falsifiable (it can be tested and measured). However, the existence of God is unfalsifiable (ditto fairies).

12.1 Can there be an absolute "proof" of anything?

There can be "absolute proof" in mathematics and pure logic, but otherwise no, nothing can be proven 

12.2 Does deductive reasoning rely on assumptions which are taken on a degree of faith?

Any type of reasoning begins with premises, which are could be assumptions, or or facts. But there is no faith involved unless one believes the premises are absolute truth.  

12.3 Is it possible to have degrees of faith?

It depends which definition of the word "faith" is being used. One definition is confidence, and it is perfectly logical to have a degree of confidence, to be "fairly sure" and so on. Scientists use statistical methods to calculate the level of confidence in the results of an experiment.   

But another definition of faith is the belief that something is true when it has not been verified (e.g. religious faith). Religious faith rests on the assertion that God is real, for example: 

"We know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ." http://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-real.html#ixzz3JvBHzFLn  

Religious apologists will often fallaciously equivocate these two very different meanings of the word "faith" to try and demonstrate that people who don't have faith, have faith!

12.4 Why do you claim that "validation" leads to "facts"?

I don't. Validation leads to a hypothesis or theory being validated (or invalidated). A hypothesis or theory can never be a fact. Hypotheses and theories are models which explain certain facts. More information here

12.5  Surely hypotheses and theories explain observations or other uncertain phenomena. One can never distill ANY models of reality as referencing, on any level, any incontrovertible "facts."

The question illustrates a misunderstanding of what a fact is. (see definition here). An observation is a fact.  For example, it's a fact that the sun appears to move across the sky, There have been various theories over the centuries to explain this fact. The best current theory is that the earth is rotating and this is what makes the sun appear to rise, travel across the sky and then set below the horizon.

12.6 Why do you claim that validation completely removes the need for faith in whatever is supposedly "validated?"

I don't. Validation is the process which tests whether the predictions made by a theory are true or false. A theory is a model that provides a certain level of confidence, but it could be wrong (or incomplete). The validation process never ends. Faith is required to believe the theory is a fact.

12.7 Why do you keep ignoring the necessity of "faith" in order to accept--even tentatively--any matter as a "fact?"

Because a fact does not require faith (that's why it is a fact). Faith is required to believe that a hypothesis or theory is a fact. Hence the need for faith in religion.

12.8 Now insert the answer to 12.6 in place of the one you provided in 12.7 

That doesn't make sense - they are two different answers to two different questions.  To clarify - faith is required to believe a theory is a fact. It is not required to believe a fact is a fact. 

12.9 Why do you keep ignoring other kinds of evidence than that which follows the specific methodology of what you proffer to be "validation?"

This question doesn't make sense. Evidence doesn't follow a methodology of validation. An example of evidence would be apples falling from a tree. A theory explains evidence. In this example, the theory of gravity.

12.10 You still refer to only one type of evidence: observation, from which a conclusion is drawn. Same as the methodology of scientific evidence, which was my point. What of other evidence, such as listed here, and here ?

Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid and here are indeed many types of evidence, some stronger than others. However, not all evidence is factual. 

13 You are arguing FOR a universe that was created and is sustained entirely by mindless mechanistic forces.

13a You could put it that way I suppose.  The strongest explanations I've come across for the creation and existence of the universe are natural explanations which do not require the existence of God.  However, that doesn't eliminate the existence of God.  See 6b and 6c

13.1 You say "God" is a simple answer, but you also argue on behalf of Occam's Razor and claim that "simple" answers are the best. So are you suggesting that "God" is the best answer?

13.1a Occam's razor does not advocate that "simple answers are the best".   Occam's razor is a principle used to assess competing hypotheses. It suggests that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  A simple description can refer to a more complex hypothesis, and a more complex description may refer to a simple hypothesis. "God" is a simple answer, but it relies on a huge list of assumptions, and therefore fails the Occam's razor test. 

13.2 You say there are "natural explanations" that DO NOT require the existence of God. You do not support that statement

13.2a The statement that: "there are natural explanations that do not require the existence of God" is a fact. It doesn't need supporting other than to point out that every science, history and geography text book is full of such explanations.   

13.2.b What I do need to support are the specific, natural explanations. For example, thunder is the sound of an electrostatic discharge between the electrically charged regions inside a thundercloud and the ground. This theory has been verified.  But it is still possible that Thor creates thunder with his magic hammer, Mjölnir.  I consider the Thor explanation to be unlikely given the weakness of the arguments provided by believers in Thor. But Thor could still exist. See 6a, 6b and 6c.

14  If a person can't present a good argument for the existence of--say--Mongolia, do you reject their testimony (or lack of) as the basis of an assumption that Mongolia does not exist? 

14a If a person presents an argument for the existence of something (including Mongolia), my level of confidence in their argument will depend on how good their argument is. I have seen and heard overwhelming arguments for the existence of Mongolia; arguments based on evidence, deduction and which make predictions that have been tested to demonstrate Mongolia exists.    

14b I have yet to see an argument for the existence of God which is anywhere near as good as the argument for the existence of Mongolia.  So in my opinion, the existence of Mongolia is highly likely, the existence of God is highly unlikely. 

14.1 Your level of confidence in an argument depends on how good the argument is, but you also base your decision on additional evidence that has nothing to do with the argument. 

14.1.a My opinion on a claim is based on all of the arguments and all of the evidence - not just the argument from one person.

14.1.1 How would you go about calculating your "confidence level," say, that the world will experience catastrophic climate change in the next ten years? Or the next twenty? Fifty? A century from now?

14.1.1a Confidence levels are calculated from data and verification of hypotheses. In your example of climate change, a wide range of hypotheses have been tested based on data such as rise in the global sea level, increases in surface and ocean temperatures, shrinking and thinning ice sheets, etc. The verified hypotheses become theories, and the confidence level of those theories comes from a statistical analysis of the data. (Note that a theory is a model of reality).  These theories are tested every year, as more data is gathered, providing a more accurate set of theories, and so on. The confidence level of a future event depends on the complexity of the data. So for example, the confidence level in the prediction of the swing of a pendulum is very high because the data and the theory are very simple and highly predictable. But predicting the temperature of the ocean in 2027 is less certain because it is based on a complex model which is refined on a regular basis, and has many variables, some of which are unpredictable and which is also subject to random events. Hence the confidence level drops as you go further into the future. So a prediction of the climate in the year 2117 is going to be at a very low confidence level compared to a prediction for 2018.

14.2 Your conclusion regarding Mongolia's existence has a more comprehensive basis than your conclusion regarding God's existence

14.2.a  I suppose it does because my conclusion regarding Mongolia's existence is based on evidence that is more comprehensive than the evidence for God, and the arguments for Mongolia's existence are better, and far more comprehensive, than the arguments regarding God's existence.  Therefore my level of confidence in the existence of Mongolia is much higher than my level of confidence in the existence of God. 

14.3 Deduction begins with assumptions, therefore conclusions are conditional, so surely every conclusion requires faith? 

14.3.a A deductive argument begins with premises. The conclusion of a deductive argument (and indeed any argument) depends on the validity of the premises. If the premises for a deductive argument are factual then one can have a high level of confidence in the conclusion. 

14.3.1 All "verification" processes rest on faith, don't they?

I'm not sure about the use of the word "all" as I consider verification to be a single process and a united concept. There are various methods and techniques that can be used within the process, but they are not the process. In any case, the verification process does not rest on faith. It rests on making predictions which can be tested. The results lead to confidence in a hypothesis. But anyone who assumes a hypothesis or a theory is truth, is relying on faith.   

14.3.2 We all have a world view, or a fundamental viewpoint, or whatever you choose to call it. All such views are ultimately based on assumptions. Why don't you present and attempt to justify yours?

Speaking of assumptions, there are some false assumptions in that question!

First of all, the definition of "worldview" that use is: "A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world."  My particular "philosophy of life" can be summarised very simply: Do not rely on faith. (In fact it's more fundamental than that - I seem to be incapable of relying on faith even if I wanted to). 

This worldview is obviously not "ultimately based on assumptions".  So it's not my worldview that is based on assumptions. However, arguments are based on assumptions. That's true of any argument on any subject. And when I present an argument, the assumptions it is based on are always clear.   

14.3.3 Everything presumed to be a "fact" rests, at best, on a "theory" does it not?
No. This is back to front. Theories explain facts. A fact is self evident. For example, it is a fact that the sun appears to track across the sky. There are theories which explain why. The theory rests on facts. A fact does not rest on a theory. 

14.4 Surely it is nonsense to say that you only believe in deductive reasoning to make your conclusions rather than faith?

14.4a Yes that would be nonsense if someone was to say that! Deductive reasoning is only part of the validation process, which overall provides a level of confidence, rather than relying on faith.   

14.5 If I'm pretty confident that a bridge will hold me and I attempt to cross it, I act in faith, even with an element of doubt.  This is analogous to someone acting as if God doesn't exist. 

This is actually a disanalogy because it confuses two very different meanings of the word "faith". The first definition of "faith" is confidence based on verification. The bridge you are crossing has been carefully designed, tested and crossed many times.  There is a chance it could collapse, but because of the verification process, we can have a high level of confidence that we can cross safely, and we take a (subconsciously calculated risk in crossing it). 

Someone who acts as if God doesn't exist does so because unlike the bridge, God has not been verified or tested. Someone who believes God exists is using the second meaning of faith, where something is assumed to be true when it has not been verified or tested. 

14.6 Doesn't faith just mean confidence in something unproven?

No. The word faith has several meanings. It can mean confidence in something that's been tried and tested, (such as a bridge, or a text book), or it can mean believing that an explanation which is unproven must be true (such as M-theory or the existence of gods or fairies). See 14.5

15 You say that faith means believing that an untested hypothesis is true.  That applies to your belief in Mongolia assuming that you have never personally been there to see for yourself. 

15a It is completely wrong to assume that the only way to be confident in Mongolia's existence is to go there and "see for yourself." A theory can provide a very high level of confidence without us having to be somewhere or see something for oursfairies, as any lawyer or policeman will explain.   No one has to go to Mongolia to be confident that it exists.  The hypothesis that Mongolia exists has been thoroughly tested and validated.

15.1 It requires faith to draw conclusions from experiments, for example, we may witness wood burning every time we apply a heat source, but if we douse the wood with water or remove oxygen, we would observe a different result. 

15.1a You accurately describe the combustible properties of wood, and the requirement of oxygen for combustion, both of which are excellent case studies of the verification process.  The combustibility of wood is perhaps the most repeated experiment in the history of the human race! That's why we can be so confident about the combustible properties of wood under different conditions.  However, there are no such tests for the existence of God, hence the need for faith.

16 I find the evidence for God to be compelling, so it's wrong for explanations of nature to exclude that possibility.

16a I fully agree that the possibility of God should not be excluded.

16b The reason I find the existence of God unlikely is not because of evidence (which forms the basis of contradictory explanations). I consider the existence of God to be unlikely because of the weakness (or absence) of the explanations from people who claim God exists.

17 You believe that atheism fits with our best understanding of the world in science more than theism does

17a I would generally agree with the statement but perhaps disagree with the use of the word "atheism" - perhaps "atheistic explanations" is better than "atheism" (especially given the range of opinions of what "atheism" means).   It does indeed seem the world around us can be explained in a verifiable way without the necessity for gods, fairies, demons, etc. Theistic explanations cannot be verified therefore they are inherently weaker than explanations which can be verified.    However...

17b One cannot assume gods, fairies and demons do not exist just because there are scientific explanations of the world which do not require those supernatural entities for that particular explanation. 

17c There are some atheists who will claim that the number of explanations of the world which rely on gods has diminished steadily as human knowledge increases, and this is a fact. But I think it's wrong for anyone to assume that this trend demonstrates that gods definitely don't exist.  It can be argued that it implies gods don't exist, but not with absolute certainty.

17d So, If a theist proposes that God is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon (X), they need to address the question: "How is God the best explanation for X?" This question more than any other reveals the weakness in theistic explanations for the natural world. 

18 Unless you experience something personally, you are relying on "faith" for anything and everything that you take at someone else's word, including every bit of education that we've received that we haven't personally substantiated through our own actions

18a This is a fallacious argument. Accepting a theory to be the best explanation does not require personal experience. It requires evidence, a hypothesis, a deductive argument, and validation.  If one was to assume that a theory is 100% true then that would require faith. But I don't hold that position.

18b One should always challenge what we are taught in school or wherever. Where is the teacher getting their information from? How reliable is it? Has it been tested or is it just a hypothesis? How is the teacher being assessed? And so on. A good teacher should make all this clear. 

18c A religious teacher who asserts God exists, is asking the students to have faith in an untested hypothesis.  A teacher who says the best current explanation for the variety of life on earth is evolution by natural selection, does not require his or her students to have faith.

18.1 Your worldview is based on faith rather than the "proof"
Absolutely not!  My default worldview is "I don't know." If I am presented with an explanation for something, I classify it as speculation, hypothesis, theory or fact, depending on the evidence and level of verification. I then have a level of confidence in the truth of that explanation. That level of confidence can never be 100% -  Proof is a word that should be avoided – I don’t think it exists outside of pure mathematics or pure logic. 

19 I'm not asking you to "prove" a negative! I'm asking you for evidence that the universe is governed and maintained through mindless mechanistic forces! 

19a The word "evidence" is misused again, but I assume this means that I'm being asked for a strong argument which demonstrates that the creation and existence of the universe is natural. These are the theories that science, history, mathematics and logic provide, and they are freely available in a vast number of textbooks and online resources.  But an argument isn't evidence. An argument explains evidence.  So for example, we have evidence that the moon orbits the earth, and one explanation is gravity. We know gravity exists. Another explanation is that a god keeps the moon in orbit. But there's no evidence that a god is doing that.   

19b It's not possible to provide a single over-arching argument that the universe is purely natural. The best one can do is to select specific aspects of the universe, and examine the explanations for that aspect.  For example, the explanation for the natural formation of our planet, and other planets, is a very robust and tested theory. But for all we know, there might be planets that did not occur naturally, which a god or gods designed and created. 

19c The assertion that the universe is governed or maintained is not supported by evidence. In fact, evidence shows far from being maintained, the entropy of the universe is steadily increasing. 

19.1 Anyway - you can prove a negative!
19.1a It depends what is meant by proving a negative. Let's assume a negative claim is a claim that a thing does not exist. So referring to the introduction: If someone claims God does not exist, they have the burden of proof. If someone makes a claim that God exists, they have the burden of proof. If someone finds that claim unlikely, the person making the claim that God exists still has the burden of proof.  The sceptic has no obligation to prove the claim false

19.1b The only way to prove something does not exist is if that thing is specific and measurable. (See 12.1a and 12.1b for the example of the shape of the earth). If a thing is unfalsifiable (for example God or fairies or Russel's teapot), then there is no way to prove that thing does not exist.

19.2 Absence of Evidence (for God) is not Evidence of Absence
And the same logic applies to fairies and elves! The philosopher Irving Copi makes an interesting point: Some things, such as gods or fairies, have been talked about for hundreds of thousands of years and furthermore believers claim these entities intervene in human affairs. It is therefore reasonable to assume that after so much time, there would be some evidence for them by now. In such a situation it is reasonable to assume the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

19.3 What you refer to as "evidence" referred to by scientists is actually their own all-but-proven-to-be-wrong assumptions behind much of scientific theory in the first place--at least as applied to the likelihood/unlikelihood of the existence of our universe on such terms. 
No, the evidence referred to by scientists is factual evidence. You can argue that a hypothesis is an assumption, but evidence is not an assumption. 


19.4 Hypotheses are  "explanations" which attempt to justify their own discredited assumptions or in other words the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, in a classic example of the fallacy of circular reasoning
A hypothesis can only be justified if it explains certain facts, and if it can be tested it then becomes a theory. That is not circular reasoning. 

20 It is not logical to base one's opinions regarding the existence of anything on the supposed weakness of another's argument on the matter! 

20a In fact that approach is entirely logical when the weak argument is the only source of information. 

21  Spot the fallacy:  I've never personally been to Mongolia. Neither Jack nor Jill nor Joe nor Jim have offered a good case for Mongolia's existence.  Therefore I conclude with 95% to 97% certainty that Mongolia does not exist.

21a There is no fallacy to spot. If my knowledge of Mongolia is limited to poor arguments for Mongolia's existence from four people, then I have no reason to believe Mongolia exists. 

22 What evidence would convince you that God exists?

22a There is a long answer but assuming it's the Christian God in this case, the short answer is that if I were to see Christians praying to Jesus for amputees' missing limbs to grow back, and the limbs grew back, then I would believe their God exists. (More precisely - my level of belief would shift from 5% to at least 95% which in my view qualifies as belief as I don't think anything can be 100% certain)

22.1 The resurrection has been validated as much as any other presumed "fact" has been validated.
This is false for two reasons:

(a) The resurrection has not been validated (it's a hypothesis) and 
(b) Facts do not require validation. If they did they would not be facts. 

22.2 The resurrection references evidence--in this case eyewitness accounts--and the reasoned evidence of the lengths that those eyewitnesses went to in order to insist on the factuality of what they observed

The only evidence is what's in the Bible, which is hearsay at best but just because it refers to evidence doesn't make it more than a hypothesis. As for eyewitnesses, the accounts in the Bible are anonymous and we doh't know what lengths any alleged witnesses went to. 

23 You are using the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. You say there is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist.

23a If I was to say that there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist, that would indeed be fallacious. But I'm not saying that. 

24 It is fallacious to say that gods probably don't exist just because the person making the claim has a weak argument, because the person making the argument could not possibly know all the necessary evidence.

24a The first problem here is the use of the word "evidence". Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. My lack of belief in the existence of a god is based on the weakness of the arguments supporting the claim that a god exists exist. The same evidence can be used to support both sides of the same argument.

24b The second problem is why would someone make an argument for something without knowing about the necessary evidence?  If they are raging from a position of ignorance then that's hardly my problem!

24c In any case, my opinion is based on all the claims for the existence of gods that I've ever heard or read, not the claim from a single person.

25 Speaking as a Christian Apologist, my verification processes refer more directly to the matter of intelligent input in the creation and maintenance of the universe.

The concept of someone having "their" verification processes is one I can't understand, especially as this personal verification process has never been described. In my worldview there is a generic verification process, as described here

The claim that the universe was created by God is a hypothesis. The idea that the universe is maintained by God is another hypothesis. Both of those hypotheses assume the existence of God (which in itself is another hypothesis).  

The statement implies there are "verification processes" which exist specifically to verify supernatural hypotheses. But without knowing what those verification processes are, and in the absence any explanation of how those hypothesis have been tested, the claims are merely bald assertions with no justification, and to believe they are true requires faith.
   

26 My definition of God is that which is involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe. 

Defining something as being the thing responsible for the cause of something is just a circular argument. See 9.2. For example. One could say "My definition of a singularity is that which is involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe". 

27 Why do you keep ignoring that non-theistic explanations of our existence and its fundamental basis rely on the unsupported philosophical assumptions of "scientific naturalism" and "logical positivism?"

Non-theistic explanations are simply explanations that do not require God. Scientific naturalism and logical positivism are two types of philosophy among hundreds of others. Personally I don't see the point of adopting a specific philosophical approach to provide explanations as that's unnecessarily limiting. My approach is to look at any explanation and determine if it's speculation, hypothesis or theory. That applies to theistic and non-theistic explanations.

28 You are relying on special pleading--in this case the assertion that one accept the default basis of basic reality being non-theistic

Firstly, that's not an example of special pleading. Secondly  I have never made that assertion. What I have said is that the default basis of reality is "I don't know"  See #17.1   here. To clarify - I don't know what "default basis of basic reality" is. 

29 You have no logical basis whatsoever for supporting your claim that God "probably doesn't exist."

I think gods are unlikely to exist given the lack of evidence. That is a perfectly logical basis. But of course, unlikely does not mean impossible. Perhaps gods do exist. Perhaps our universe was created by a god or other type of intelligent being. We just don't know. 

30 You claim that God’s existence seems unlikely to you. Please rationally justify that claim!

The rational justification for doubting God’s existence, is the lack of evidence for God’s existence.

31) You can't reference the evidence you purport to rely on for your claim that God’s existence is unlikely!

My opinion that God is unlikely to exist comes from the lack of evidence for God’s existence. How can I reference evidence of a lack of evidence?

32) I claim that God is likely to exist. the claim from your perspective is that He isn't. Two perspectives between us and two claims made--but only my perspective has been supported with logic and reason!

I am not making a claim. The claim that God exists must come before it can be doubted.  It is logically impossible for someone to disbelieve in God’s existence until the claim that God exists has been made. The person claiming God exists has the burden of proof.  

33) You proffered a conclusion, Jim--"I find that claim unlikely given the lack of evidence"--and you can't even tell us what the evidence or reasoned basis for your conclusion is?

How can there be evidence for a lack of evidence, other than the lack of evidence itself? The reasoned basis for my opinion is the lack of evidence.

34) You say your reasoned basis for considering the existence of God to be unlikely is the lack of evidence. But a "reasoned basis" requires "reasoning," Jim, and you're not providing it!

The lack of evidence is my reasoning. The lack of evidence for gods is the reason I find their existence unlikely. Ditto fairies.

35) I'm asking you to provide reasoning and evidence in support of your actual expressed claim, Jim--that "God is unlikely to exist"

That's not a claim - it's the response to a claim. The reasoning that God is unlikely to exist comes from the lack of evidence.  If God intervened in our world or our lives, surely there would be evidence?  

36) In spite of your best efforts to try to make this all about my claim and not yours, we are both making claims and both of us are responsible for justifying such on their own bases.

The claim that God exists comes before anyone can doubt it. The person making that claim has the burden of proof. Trying to shift the burden of proof on to the person who doubts the claim is essentially an admission that the argument is lost.

37) A "lack of evidence" means just that--no evidence has been presented for a position. That's where YOU stand, not me!

The person making the claim that X exists has the burden of proof. If they can’t present evidence, then there is no reason to believe their claim, other than faith. 

38) You are making a claim - you've admitted to reaching the conclusion that God's existence is "unlikely," remember?

Yes, but that’s not a claim. That’s my reaction to the claim that God exists.

39) I'm thoroughly unconvinced by your claim that God is unlikely to exist, especially since you have offered no reasoned support for your conclusion!

Firstly, it’s not a claim. Secondly, the reasoned support for my conclusion is the lack of evidence to support the claim that God exists.

40) You provide no evidence whatsoever to support your claim on its own basis.

My opinion that God’s existence is unlikely is based on the lack of evidence for God’s existence. How can I provide evidence of a lack of evidence, other than the lack of evidence? Even if my claim is unsupported, it doesn't strengthen the claim that God exists. 

41) It is undeniable that god(s) might not exist. If you claim God existence is "unlikely," then you need to provide evidence for that claim.

It is impossible to provide evidence of the non-existence of something, unless that thing is measurable with specific coordinates. It’s not possible to demonstrate the existence, or non-existence, of something that is unfalsifiable.  Hence it’s possible to provide evidence that a bottle of milk does not exist in my fridge.  It’s impossible to provide evidence that God does not exist in my fridge.

42) Your claim that God is "unlikely" to exist has not been supported by reasoning or evidence at all. On that basis alone I can demonstrate that my claim God exists is far more rational than yours.

Several issues here. First, I am not making a claim – I am responding to the claim that God exists. The reasoning for my response that God is unlikely to exist, is the lack of evidence provided by the person making the claim. The second issue is that the claim God exists does not become more rational just because there is no evidence of non-existence. The claim that God exists can only be rational if it is supported by evidence. Finally, let's assume that my opinion regarding God's unlikely existence didn't exist. Let's assume I was never born. That doesn't make the claim for God's existence any more likely. 

CONCLUSION

Rejecting inadequate answers does not automatically oblige us to know the actual answer. Rejecting divine pseudo explanations does not mean we have to know everything about the universe. Some insist that saying you don't have a belief in God because of the absence of evidence isn't good enough. You must give an argument for divine non-existence, or more emphatically, failing to give arguments for non-existence is virtually to concede the debate to the person who at least gives some arguments, however weak, for divine existence.