If you have Proof(God doesn’t exist) … \times 2
Your burden of proof awaits. 
Yes, theists and atheists share the onus probandi
Why is Russell’s teapot weak?
Plantinger’s reply misses the point - the tea pot is about burden of proof, not the attributes of teapots and God. It’s a point about unfalsifiability, made prior to Popper’s analysis.
Have you something else?
If you claim there is a flying spaghetti monster, it’s down to you to show us why we should agree. That there is a long history of flying spaghetti monster posts on-line, with personal accounts and complex Pastafarian arguments, is not sufficient.
In the game Stellaris, there is occasionally an anomaly that on investigation turns out to be a ceramic container in orbit around a random star… no amount of investigation reveals how or why.
Now that is a better counterpoint.
1 Like
Yep. That’s not what Russell was doing.
He was pointing out that an arbitrary assertion need not be believed.
He came up with an arbitrary assertion, in order to show this.
Pastafarians use their arbitrary assertion in a somewhat different way.
The first thing you should do if you are to critique an argument is to understand how it works. If someone asserts some arbitrary proposition, then the burden of demonstrating its truth is on them.
A lot of people don’t care much if god exists. But the god-fearing tend to be quite insistent that we must agree with them. Hence their arguments, which are the topic of this thread.
I added this to the OP, with you in mind:
1 Like
Then set them out.
An appeal to authority isn’t a satisfactory argument.
Russell concluded, after due rational consideration of the available arguments, that there is no god. He wan’t about proving that god does not exists, nor is that the point of this thread. The tread is about the failures common to the arguments theists accept. If you have an argument that avoids the generic failures, set it out for us.
So far all we have seen is appeal to authority and special pleading.
1 Like
That’s a dreadful attempt at an argument.
Your Tesla example was a direct appeal to authority; that we should agree with such a very clever fellow. Russell’s teapot is an argument about burden of proof, which stands regardless of who said it.
Then there’s the bit where you pretend to have already presented arguments that I’ve not addressed. The accusation of not taking this seriously is beggared by the fact that it was I who set this thread up.
If you have a good argument, set it out. If you have already, just quote yourself, and we’ll see if I missed replying to it.
Ball’s in your court.
It’s really very simple. Someone who thinks there are arguments that prove that god exists is obligated, if they wish to be taken seriously, to set out those arguments and explain how they work and how they overcome any objections.
Hop to it.
I think you got this wrong. Those who argue for the reality of God are god-lovers. Those who insist that all arguments which demonstrate the existence of God, must fail for some reason or another, are obviously “god-fearing”.
1 Like
Yes, Russell’s teapot is about the burden of proof. Some theists argue that because there’s no proof that God doesn’t exist theism is true. This is wrong.
However it’s also wrong to say that God doesn’t exist because there’s no proof that God exists.
Both theists and atheists bear the burden of proof.
If you must.
So agnosticism.
The relevant part here is that the proofs do not do what it says on the label.
Yes, agnosticism. 
Your last statement is interesting.
Which god?
Yeah, the label will say 180 proof, then it turns out it’s only 90%. What kind of “proof” is that?
1 Like
You are attempting to be impartial by citing a supposed symmetry that isn’t as clear as it might seem. Your other thread shows that.
There simply is not an equivalent history of argument against the existence of god, going back thousands of years. One side has a tradition, the other is basically reactive.
That on top of falsification places the burden of proof.
Hence, which god.
Which God?
If you want me to speculate as to the existence of some entity, set out its attributes.
If to be is to be the subject of a bound variable, what binds “god”?
What about the radical and Christian doctrine that God is love. Then let’s assume that is say, the only definition of god.
How would you disprove the existence of love ?
Interesting.
Unbiased, yes. It’s clear except when you include thinkos in the analysis.
I suppose that there are few reasons to disbelieve God than to believe God.
If you disagree on the symmetry then that means you should believe what some X says even when he doesn’t have proof.
I wouldn’t.
But if that is what god is, then we can comfortably drop the word “god” and get by on “love”.
Sounds like a plan.
1 Like
You can’t see the absurdity of that?
Ok.
To exist is to have some sort of characteristics, to be the subject of some predication, to have properties - whatever expression you prefer. Now, what are the characteristics of the thing you want me to talk about? Omniscience? Omnipotence? Being green?
Unless you tell me this, I can’t see how we can progress this approach.