Add new comment

but technically the Theist position is that a personal God exists which then attaches a purpose for humanity. A Muslim, a Jew, a Christian are all Theists. A Deist is more general, they don't necessarily believe that God interferes in peoples' lives or that there is a supernatural quality about it. So I don't think that dismissing the "baggage" that I tacked on is a fair distinction. If you are a Theist, you believe a specific God created the universe and everything in it for the sake of, maybe among other things, determining whether people go to heaven or hell ultimately. I don't think that's a controversial statement at all. A Deist would challenge it, but a Theist doesn't. So maybe there's just some confusion of terms.
Anyway, I'll just take your position as you stated it. I think a specific God created the universe and everything in it.
-How did he do it? ...............Well that's not for me to prove, that's for you to disprove.
-When did he do it?................. Again, that's on you.
-Well does he still exist? ................. Pssh, that's on you buddy, you go figure it out. I've made a claim that seems pretty obvious to me, I mean look around, all this stuff didn't just appear out of thin air right? So you'd better get to work trying to to disprove my argument.
......................
What if I said the universe created itself. Would the burden of proof be on me to explain how that happened? You betcha. The same would apply if I said it always existed or it was created out of nothing. When ANYONE makes a claim as to the origin of the universe, they've assumed the burden of proving their statement, unless of course they don't care whether or not their argument is logical or reasonable and just want to believe in whatever they choose, in which case thankfully we are free to do just that.
......................
Cliff notes: The burden of proof doesn't fall to the argument that seems more extraordinary to someone than another argument. It falls to the person making it.