But if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then they can be called upon to provide reasons for their position. person must prove so. But holding to the position that there i
And I don't agree with PJ's summary of the atheist world view. It's better summed up as "I see no reason to assume there might be a God, so I don't."
Which is a substantial denial, having at the least to account for the origin of matter (and in a universe consisting mostly of mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy), absolutely excluding even as a hypothesis a Creator-God while speculating about space-seed theories.The aversion to an Ultimate omniscient and omnipotent Judge is what seems to be the reason for this.
I don’t have to “account for dark matter” and positing a big brain in the sky doesn’t do anything but move the question line back one step.
The assumption that “someone must have created this” comes from the idea that nothing can exist without having been created. This leads to the question “Then who or what created God?” If the answer is “no one,” then life can exist without having been created, which undercuts the idea that the universe must have been created if it is based only on the assumption that nothing can exist unless it was created. Positing a creator god only leads to a cul-de-sac where the answers become “because God wants it (apparently)” and that answer is not really an answer, just an evasion.