The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason.
Why is it fallacious? That it has been used to attack theists certainly doesn't imply that it is therefore wrong.
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.
The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.
How does it solve the problem?
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition?
The proposition is that God exists. In fact, more, it's that the specific God of the believer exists, as opposed to the infinite number of other Gods which must be deemed equally possible, as there is no evidence for any of them.
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism. This is a very important detail. I have never supported an assertion that god does or does not exist. Therefore unless you are supporting one of those assertions then neither of those assertions is being defended as part of this discussion.
Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position.
There may not be direct evidence that God does not exist. As has been noted often, it's not possible to prove the negative. However, there is certainly plenty of evidence that God is not necessary in order for the universe to exist as it does. In fact, were this not true, then our hypothetical theist wouldn't be arguing for a God for which there is no evidence. There is also evidence that God is an invention of mankind. There is also evidence of the cognitive biases and superstitious modes of thought which can cause animals such as ourselves to fool ourselves into attaching meaning to things which do not have the meaning that we attach to them.
There's quite a lot of evidence which make God both unlikely and unnecessary. Weighed against that is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.
So, yes, I can provide evidence for why our hypothetical theist (for the sake of my not typing that out over and over again, I'm going to call him Theo from now on) should consider changing his position.
1) The hypothetical individual is not arguing/proposing/asserting. (I use individual because the next necro might be a theist and I want to cover both sides)
2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.
5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.
*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.
The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.
No, again, I don't accept this premise. The logical position is to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is cause to believe that it does. Theo is presenting the idea of a deity, and therefore has the burden of proof for establishing this to be the case.
I'm also curious as to how you've determined which side is "the attacker" in this instance. Surely, if you take the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist", then the only thing being "attacked" is the null hypothesis? By defining the atheist as "the attacker" you're implying that "God exists" is, in fact, the null hypothesis. I would contend that Theo is the person attacking the null hypothesis by stating that an entity for which there is no evidence exists.
1) Theo is not presenting the idea of a deity. The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.
2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.
3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.
No, I'm sorry. I don't want to get into one of those "arguing about arguing" exchanges, but your analogy relies on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained. This is absolutely false, and so the analogy falls down at the first hurdle.
How does it rely on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained? The analogy is merely being used to demonstrate the absence of staining is not evidence of the absence of glass. No analogy is perfect. However an analogy is deemed valid if there is no difference that reflects on how the analogy is being used. Since I was using the analogy to give a concrete example of "possible but not necessary" AND none of the differences were related to this, the analogy is valid for its usage.
