Negative Atheism is Correct

Pro raises the issue of burden of proof. I would like to remind Pro that the burden of proof lies on Pro in this debate as Pro is making the claim that negative atheism is correct whereas I am simply able to win if I can prevent the BoP of Pro being met. Pro begins his/her argument by stating that negative atheism is the default position and that I have BoP. If this were the case, then the debate would be entitled "negative atheism is incorrect" and I would be Pro. Since my opponent is, by default, asserting the correctness of negative atheism the BoP lies on his/her shoulders as opposed to mine. To justify the fallacious claim that the BoP is mine, Pro states that negative atheism is the default position due to being the least complex worldview. I will not only prove Deism to be the least complex world view but will also prove that either Gnostic Theism, or gnostic atheism must be correct whereas negative atheism cannot, possibly, be the correct position. Occam's Razor refutes itself because, if we are to reach the conclusion regarding how to find a conclusion, to apply a razor would contradict the philosophy of applying as little as is necessary. Thus, the razor itself is an unnecessary complication regarding seeking an answer and therefore Occam's razor defeats its own necessity due to it not being the least complicated possibility in methods to seek answers. My opponent goes on to state that negative atheism makes fewer assumptions than any other world view. I shall now present to you a set of world views and then go on to prove to you why negative atheism is not the least complex one after all. After this, I shall prove that negative atheism makes more assumptions than the others. Agnosticism is the position that the existence and nature of a god or gods are unknown or unknowable. [http://rationalwiki.org...] Ignosticism is the theological position that the subject of debate (the existence of one or more gods) has not been coherently defined. While agnosticism states that "you can't really know either way" regarding the existence or non-existence of God, ignosticism posits that "you haven't even agreed on what you're discussing." [http://rationalwiki.org...] Negative atheism is, in the words of Pro itself, the belief that all of the universe exists whilst a supernatural creator of any kind does not, but possibly can if evidence is later presented. Now I shall prove to you that, out of those four beliefs, negative atheism not only makes the most assumptions but is the least likely of the four to be true. Whilst agnosticism states that nothing can be known about God and that, 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 that we can rely on physical evidence for the existence of a non-physical entity and that, on top of this, "god" is even knowable to begin with. Ignosticism denies that any consistent definition of god's nature has been reached and that until such a definition has been reached, the existence of God will remain indisputable and inconclusive. Aside from the fact that Ignosticism's logic is flaws and axiomatic, it also is provable by the fact that each religion defines God's nature and what God is seeking completely differently to the others. On the other hand, negative atheism makes the assumption that we can judge God's existence base don evidence placed before us, despite not even knowing what God is to begin with. This is not only a further assumption to make but is also an erroneous claim as God is not physically definable and thus physical evidence will never be able to be used for or against he existence of whatever form of thing God may be. Now I shall move onto the theory of Deism and prove why it makes more sense than negative atheism. Deism states that there was a god and that all of science is true but that the original source of the matter and energy which science relies upon studying is a god that no longer cares for this universe, nor influences its discourse. [http://rationalwiki.org...] This is not only supported by the fact that matter and energy exist, and thus must have originated somewhere, but also by the fact that energy is no longer created or destroyed[http://www.icr.org...], it only changes form (indicating that it's no longer any influence from whatever created the original, finite amount of energy that perpetually alters form). Negative atheism asserts that matter and energy exist, via evidence. It then asserts that since we have no proof of an original creator, we must conclude that no creator exists. These two assertions lead to the loophole of things existing without origin. My opponent must prove how and why this is physically possible and how evidence could possibly lead one to conclude 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. On a final note, I shall prove how negative atheism cannot possible be correct because only gnostic Theism, gnostic Deism or gnostic atheism can be correct. I call it Pascal's wager on LSD. Here is the definition of correct: Free from error; in accordance with fact or truth. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Let's take the type of God that exists as being a number on a possibly existent roulette. A man enters the room blindfolded, ear-plugged, noses blocked, mouth taped shut and their entire body is clothed with latex. You perform a tracheotomy[http://www.wikihow.com...] so the man can breathe. Before he entered the room, he'd already been told what was about to happen to him. This is what he knows, from what he was told before he had all these things happen to him: (1) There is possibly a roulette in front of him, that it is possibly going to be spun once he dies and that the bet that he places on it right before he dies will be taken as his bet (he will communicate via telepathic reading, which definitely works accurately). (2) That if he chooses to not bet at all, he will not be able to win the roulette and may have to suffer for eternity, if such a place of suffering exists. (3) That if he chooses the wrong roulette number he will also suffer this eternity. (4) That if he bets on the roulette rolling no number at all, or the roulette not truly existing, it will redeem him the same punishment as number 2. (5) That if he bets on the roulette's number no longer having an influence on him, he might be right but might experience outcome number 2 if a number is the true one. (6) That if he bets on the right number, he will be eternally rewarded, or punished less than he would have at the very least. He is told that this will only possibly happen if he puts his entire faith in that number being the right one. Unlike a normal roulette, this roulette has almost infinite numbers on it. The man is not allowed to think a number, but must think of which god he truly believes to be real. The telepathic machine will equate the corresponding number and then he shall be killed. He is not allowed to randomly bet a number and let he reverse process bet a random God. In scenarios three, four, five and six the man may have bet correctly. However, it is blatantly clear that number 2 is not possible to be a correct bet as no bet as all has been placed. Thus, negative atheism cannot be correct for it makes no claim or assertion regarding God for it to be correct on.