You've made several errors. First, is that mundane things do not need to be subjected to the burden of proof, as it makes casual interaction impossible (the video points out this exactly near the end). Your cup example doesn't illustrate the burden of proof case either. First, we have a physical basis and understanding of what likely resulted in its placement. To claim that someone must have put it there is extremely reasonable, no one is going to deny that. Again, the video points out this near the end. Second, as you worded it, you are the one that made the claim; you stated that it's just there by itself. If I were to speak next, I would be asking for more information, not making the claim. By saying "surely someone must have put it there", is actually using precedent evidence of how objects are moved by people as a basis for countering you. I am challenging your statement of saying "it's just there", which offers nothing substantating to why it is there, to now giving a valid reason for basis of why. It would then be your turn to either combat my statement, or readjust your claim.
I obviously gave an example of a small object like a cup as a creation to make my point more clear to you, and demonstrate how it differs from proving a concept of the creator "God" which you demanded to be proven..
Since the cup is creature and this weird example of Pluto thing is also a creature and both are incomparable to how you might define a God, I would go with the cup example because it's touchable unlike the Pluto thing which you compared it wrongly to the claiming of God existence; and as you proceeded I think you would be able to figure out what I mean..
See I don't say something like: "you can't prove me wrong" that's just lame!
First of all you DON'T NEED to prove me wrong, you can either accept my opinion or deny it, and secondly you required an evidence; so I gave you an evidence, which I would give it once again in order to make things clearer:
Every thing around you can't exist merely by itself and work in this incredible system that our brain is still trying to figure out.
But you chose to decide that's this idea is irrational and ended up suggesting some idea of what you find to be rational that things just happen and that there doesn't need to be a reason, and that you need to actually examine this thing called God closely because this method proved valid to all creatures so it should necessarily apply to the actual creator of these creatures (I would once again come up to that point also as you proceed) that's when you chose to deny the whole evidence..
I don't think that all things are linked in reason (unless I am misunderstanding your wording). What I do think is that we have the ability to understand why things happen and are the way they are by using logic, and science. Some things will be easier than others, and others will not have an answer in our lifetime.
That would be valid in terms of what we have been through in our lives, like unstable childhood or a certain disease or bullying or strange coincidences, we don't need to go too far digging into the meaning behind all of that and questioning why it's me, instead we gotta be strong enough to stand up for ourselves and fight back and what doesn't break you should make you stronger..
But when talking about materials, and energy which both are basically the main components of the universe, I have to disagree with you, and allow me to get back to my little cup here as a little example of a material that it is consist of, and the energy that helped in manufacturing and putting that cup on the table, alright? if the physical, chemical, mathematical etc. rules does apply to this cup, it should apply to the whole universe because this small object is a material and a part of the universe, so the same claim that applies to the existence of this cup should apply to any other creature.. And thinking broadly: even this cup was not created by a human being out of nowhere, a human being is just using materials and energy sources that already existed putting them all together and subsequently manufacturing the "cup"..
By you saying "we call that reason a god", is a unneeded placeholder. In the absence of any reason or evidence, it does no benefit to default to some sort of idea or explination. Worse, it can be damaging if it misleads investigation if it came from no support. Your statement boils down to the idea of "science can't explain it, so until then it must be god". To that sort of statement I say why? You are making the claim for one, and that line of reasoning is a non sequitur. Absence of reason or logic does not lead to there needing or being a god present.
Well believing the theory of a creator of the universe still sound more logical than okay until we prove that universe didn't create itself we better believe in Darwin theories.. Even Darwin theories did not answer the question of how all of that came out of nowhere!! The scientists could do whatever they can to find out more about the creation, but they would eventually admit that everything was actually originated in some point..
That's interesting because I see having no God at all is extremely damaging because what is good for humanity would merely rest on a point of view created by some other human beings who are sleeping and eating and having kids and have emotional breakdowns just like you do, and eventually making the crimes to be punishable only if a human law and justice could have found it's a way to apply that on the criminal or else he's not accountable for his actions.. that's an extremely dangerous path to go..
You go further to say that I want "proof like seeing". Yes. I want proof that is testable and quantifiable by logic and scientific process just like any other theory we have currently. Whether it be in physics, chemistry, psychology, whatever it may be. I need something to be workable within these confines, because up to this point everything has worked within these (and those that haven't intitally eventually came to function under them). You are making a special pleading case of "the evidence can't be studied, it's a different kind of evidence". Ok, even if we assume that's the case we still have yet to get evidence that can be worked with. Until that point I have no reason to believe.
I think I replied to that earlier but okay I can reply again
If these rules of testing and sensing were put by supernatural being, it applies on every little or massive object in this universe, but doesn't necessarily apply to the one who created it all.
If you create a PC would it be necessarily that you have a turn on/off button, a c panel and Microsoft Office, a keyboard a screen etc.? if you think of how endless this universe is and how small we are, how limited is our time of existence, you'll realize that your brain is only another created object that you are using to try to figure things out, you don't even know how it was found out of nowhere except for what Darwin tells you about the DNA and all of that which eventually was generated at some point.. So the creator of our brain does not necessarily subject to the brain he created by conventional measurements, so if you refuse to think otherwise then it's okay..
Until you get to what your human brain thinks to be a proof of it's creator, you don't need to believe in it, but once it's (proven) to you, it's not anymore a belief because you can't believe a tastable fact, so either way; you won't accept the idea of belief whatsoever.
You can only think that tomorrow would bring a brighter future to you even if there seems to be no actual mathematics or any other human-brain measures behind it, that's why it's called a belief..
Hard;2557275.
Your final statement is trying to shift the burden or proof onto atheism by asking us to prove a negative; that's now how logic works. You made the claim said:
You call it a shift of burden, I call it a comparison of how an atheist perceive the whole idea of existence to how a religious person perceive it..
I've noticed you totally refuse or maybe offended by the idea that an atheist is also a believer but putting a proper definition of what the "belief" is for my little brain (or any other unbiased brain) to make things more understandable, I think the belief applies to atheists even if they keep denying it.. I apologize if this sounds offensive to you..
Nah not harsh or mean or anything like that at all, I hope you have a nice day [emoji255]