Negative Atheism is Correct

2C1: "[T]he burden of proof lies on Pro ... as Pro is making the claim that negative atheism is correct whereas I am ... able to win if I can prevent the BoP of Pro being met. .... [M]y opponent ... asserting the correctness of negative atheism[,] the BoP ... on his/her shoulders[.]" 1. I have fulfilled my Burden of Proof by demonstrating that negative atheism is the default position, and that in the absence of contrary evidence we should choose it. If I am able to prove that negative atheism is the default and that no contrary evidence exists, then I have fulfilled my Burden of Proof. 2. Debate doesn't have inherent rules about BoP; instead, we conclude them from the positions we take. Irrelevant here, but true regardless. --- 2C2: "Occam's Razor refutes itself because ... to apply a razor would contradict ... applying as little as is necessary. ... [T]he razor ... is an unnecessary complication ... and therefore ... defeats its own necessity due to it not being the least complicated ... methods to seek answers."1. My opponent fundamentally misunderstands Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't care how complex the method for finding the answer is, only that the answer is as simple as possible without reducing predictive power. It doesn't matter how much or how little research Einstein put into the Theory of Relativity, only how (a) predictively powerful the theory is, and (b) how simple the theory is. As such, "applying as little as is necessary" is not a correct application of Occam's Razor. 2. If Occam's Razor is not the least complicated method, please provide a simpler one that also maximizes predictive power. --- 2C3A: "Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of ... gods are unknown or unknowable. .... and ... therefore, no conclusion can be reached, negative atheism forces one to reach the conclusion that God does not exist due to a lack of evidence. This assumes ... we can rely on physical evidence for the existence of a non-physical entity and that ... "god" is even knowable to begin with." 1. Strong Agnosticism (we CAN'T know) makes the epistemological claim that it's impossible to know about the existence of deities. This claim needs proof; without proof, it would be an assumption, and thus make more assumptions than Negative Atheism does. 2. Weak Agnosticism (we DON'T know) takes the lack of evidence for the existence of gods and fails to interpret it whatsoever, other than to say that "we don't know"; however, by applying Occam's Razor, we can come to the conclusion that Negative Atheism is a simpler system, because it, unlike Weak Agnosticism, fails to make the assumption that gods may possibly exist, which requires evidence. (Conversely, the assumption that gods may not exist does not require evidence, because it is possible for anything to not exist.) 3. Relying on physical evidence and logical evidence has worked pretty well for science (if you believe the outside world exists, anyways), and seeing as ALL positions are going to make an assumption (for or against) on this matter, none make more or fewer than Negative Atheism does. Unless my opponent wants to argue hard for complete skepticism, there's no impact. 4. My opponent must provide a method through which it would be impossible to "know" about a god or any aspects of said god. Regardless of the existence of this method, if any gods are impossible to know about or impossible to physically define, then there is no way that such god(s) could be proven or disproven, which makes them unfalsifiable and without evidence of existence, which leads us back to Occam's Razor. --- 2C3B: "Ignosticism's logic is flaws (sic) and axiomatic, it ... is provable by the fact that each religion defines God's nature ... completely differently[.] ... [N]egative atheism makes the assumption that we can judge God's existence base (sic) don (sic) evidence ... despite not even knowing what God is[.] ... This is ... a further assumption ... also ... erroneous ... as God is not physically definable and thus physical evidence will never be able to be used for or against ... whatever ... God may be." 1. Look to my definition of "deity" this issue is quite reasonably resolved. If my opponent states that this definition is also incoherent, they must provide a reason why. 2. See objection 2C3A:4. 3. It is as much an assumption to believe that it is possible to understand a god as it is to believe that it is impossible to understand/define a god, unless proven otherwise. 4. My opponent states that a god is non-physical; Reject this unless proven. --- 2C3C: "Deism ... is ... supported by the fact that matter and energy exist, and ... must have originated somewhere[.] ... My opponent must prove how ... possible ... that all of matter and energy had no true origin whatsoever. He must additionally how magnetism, gravity and consciousness arose via physical means, as opposed to supernatural ones. If he fails to do so, he only furthermore proves the negative atheism has a severe logical gap, or loophole, in its "lack of assertion" that requires it to assert many other irrational things due to its lack of assertion in a creator." 1. ICR? Really? 2. Negative Atheism states nothing about the origin of the universe, etc. -- it's a conclusion we draw from it. As such, NONE of these statements are assumptions of Negative Atheism, and do not fall under the purview of Occam's Razor. 3. My opponent is fundamentally making the Cosmological Argument [1]. There are quite a few problems with the Cosmological Argument. 3.1: The Cosmological Argument makes the assumption that EVERYTHING must have a cause. While this is empirically observed, it is NOT a philosophical or logical truth. My opponent must uphold the assumption that, logically speaking, there are no uncaused causes. 3.2: Even making the aforementioned assumption, the Cosmological Argument merely pushes back creation one iteration. If EVERYTHING must have a creator, then God, too, must have a creator. Otherwise this argument is just special pleading [2]. 3.3: If the deistic doesn't need a creator because he is eternal, then an eternal universe would also not need a creator. Seeing as it's hypothesized that the Big Bang created time [3], the universe could potentially be "eternal", and would similarly not need a cause. 3.4: Entities such as quantum fluctuations are not caused by anything, but yet allow for temporary imbalances in energy to occur in the universe [4]. If the universe DOES have a net positive or negative energy, who is to say that our universe isn't balanced by an anti-universe with negative energy? 3.5: Moreover, multiple Zero-Energy Universe interpretations state that it is possible for the universe to have zero energy (and thus come from nothing) because the negative energy of the universe balances the positive energy of the universe [5]. 3.6: We don't currently know enough about the beginning of the universe to assert that a god is necessary or not, making this an argument from ignorance [6]. --- 2C4: "LSD Pascal's Wager. .... some guy makes a cosmic bet and dies .... [N]egative atheism cannot be correct ... it makes no claim or assertion regarding God for it to be correct on." 1. Note: The consequences of a theory doesn't impact its truth and to state otherwise is fallacious [7]. Further, from my opponent's definition of correct as "Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth," [8] it's not even topical. An image or two are relevant here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com...and: http://burningandfrigid.files.wordpress.com... 2. Negative atheism DOES make a claim -- that without evidence FOR the existence of a god we should not believe that one exists. If my opponent can find evidence for the existence of a god, then they certainly have disproven Negative Atheism, making it quite falsifiable. 3. The Wager makes quite a few assumptions. 3.1: It's impossible to believe that something is true by sheer will alone (that doxastic voluntarism [9] is true) and it's questionable whether a god cares whether belief is real or fake. Certain gods might accept fake belief, while other gods might only minorly reward fake belief, while other gods might punish fake belief less, just as, or more heavily as nonbelief. This makes calculation quite difficult. 3.2: Belief in any given religion may cause one to be forced into large-scale harm of other human beings, which certainly outweighs getting personal benefit in many theories of morality. 3.3: It's possible that certain gods would either not punish, reward, or punish more heavily atheism, just as it is possible that certain gods would either not punish, reward, or punish more heavily other-god-worshippers. 3.4: There are certainly many gods which could promise you an infinite possible afterlife and could coexist with other gods -- think the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Purple Unicorn. A subset of an infinite number of gods would also be infinite, meaning that if you believed in all of these gods, you would have the maximum chance of a good afterlife. Certainly my opponent would not support believing in as many gods as possible at once -- do tell us why. 3.5: For every potential god that will send a person to Heaven for an action, there exists a potential antigod that will send a person to Hell for the same action, cancelling out any potential value from actively worshipping a god. --- References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [9] http://rationalwiki.org...