Negative Atheism is Correct

---2P1. Burden of ProofDefinition of Burden of Proof: “the obligation to prove one's assertion,” Google [1]. Whoever has the Burden of Proof must provide information to back up their assertion, while the person without the Burden of Proof may simply rebut information given by the other. This is because whoever does not have the Burden of Proof has the default position, which does not require any proof to maintain.2P1A. Default PositionMy opponent has the Burden of Proof to prove that Negative Atheism is incorrect, because Negative Atheism is the default position in the lack of evidence, because it is the least complex worldview. Let’s look at this through Occam’s Razor. Definition of Occam’s Razor: “[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. … [M]ore complicated solutions may … prove correct, but—in the absence of [evidence]—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The … principle … shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power,” Wikipedia [2]. In a Negative Atheist worldview, fewer assumptions are made than in any religious worldview. For example, contrast a Negative Atheist universe and a Christian universe. Negative Atheism: “The universe exists. ”Christianity: “The universe exists, and God exists. ”In both worlds, both people assume that the universe exists. However, only in the Christian universe do people, additionally, assume that God exists. The existence of at least one additional assumption holds true for all religions, and is one of the defining characteristics of religion. However, without proof, you should not accept the Christian worldview, because it makes unproven assumptions. A similar scenario is given below:Aunicornism: “The universe exists. ”Unicornism: “The universe exists, and unicorns exist. ”Clearly one would not accept that the default position is that unicorns exist, and that one must disprove the existence of unicorns in order to not believe in them. This is because we use Occam’s Razor in our lives to choose the most simple explanation for events, rather than inventing excessively crazy theories to describe everyday events. The same holds true Thus, Negative Atheism makes fewer assumptions, and must be assumed true unless a theory with more explanatory power is proven correct. Thus, the Burden of proof of my opponent is to prove that a deity exists, which would prove that Negative Atheism does not have enough explanatory power and must be rejected for a more powerful explanatory theory.2P1B. ContrapositivesDefinition of Contrapositive: “The contrapositive of a conditional statement is formed by negating both the hypothesis and the conclusion, and then interchanging the resulting negations,” Regentsprep [3]. My opponent may claim that the statement that the contrapositive of Negative Atheistic belief places the burden of proof on the Negative Atheist. This is simply incorrect, and results from failure to correctly state the Negative Atheist opinion. An original statement: “If H, then C. ”Its contrapositive: “If not C, then not H. ”If the first statement is true, then so is the second; if false, then false. Negative Atheism: “If there is no evidence for a deity, then a deity does not exist. ”Its contrapositive: “If a deity does exist, then there is evidence for a deity. ”If the first statement is true, then so is the second; if false, then false. As such, the only Negative Atheist burden from this contrapositive would be to prove that if a deity exists and that if it interacts with the universe there would be evidence for its existence, which is quite obviously true, because interaction would change the universe in an observable way. ---Conclusion:The Affirmative needs no further contentions, because it is enough to Affirm if the Negative has no contentions. ---References:[1] . https://www.google.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor[3] . http://www.regentsprep.org...