occam's razor

Occam's razor is a philisophical principle named after some dude named Orcam, which is a principle of simplicity. Basically, philosophers like explanations to be short and sweet.

This is another argument employed regarding the existence of God. We'd rather have no God (simpler) than a God (more complex).
Something just occured to me, and I beg to differ.

Se, without God, a system must still be put into place. Perhaps we need infinite time, space, and material dimensions (see my post 'TSM'), or maybe the big bang and evolution. More human-level things come into play as well. Ethics and morals that are based off of some idea of human sacredness without God. Goals like wealth, peace, and roughly equal situations for all people on earth. Etc. Etc.
Most of these things need to be suggested without having an origin. Why on earth should we help starving people in India? Shouldn't we allow survival of the fittest to do it's work? Or why is the universe infinite? I mean, it is, but why, what is the fundamental result of that so we can live our lives in accordance with it?

Starting with God, on the other hand, is a one-point origin for all things. If you don't want to try explaining all of his purposes, or if he leaves some of them impossible to understand, you can simply say "God made it that way" or "God just said he wants us to do that, idk why!"
Fortunately, though, you can see his purpose behind most things. God is awesome and full, but he wants to make more of himself and excercise his creativity, so he makes man and earth. All of our moral behavior simply recognizes the existence and work of God. Don't kill people because they're made in Gods image and God doesn't like people smashing his artwork. Feed the hungry because we are Gods hands and feet and God wants to show people that he cares for them. Etc. Etc.

Atheism requires many assumptions and individual constructions. With theism, once you have God you have the hanging point and origin for everything else. It just spills out onto the page.
P.S. If there are atheists or agnostics or whoever out there who can trace a full behavioral and factual system off of one atheistic assumption (or even a fact derived from science or something), I'd love to hear it. Not just for a challenge, but I love to hear hanging systems like that.

burden of proof

This will be short.

"Burden of proof" refers to an argument where one side has to prove their point, and if they don't, then the other side wins. For instance, in court a considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is laid on the prosecution.

This concept is often introduced into proof-of-god debates, laying it on theists. The assumption is that unless the theist can prove God exists, a normal person observing the conversation, who has heard all the facts and logic, would chose to not believe in God.

In some way this might make sense. In general, it is more probable that something does not exist because there are more things that aren't than things that are. Plus, in our model of the universe we probably start with a blank slate and then introduce objects.

However, this is simply an argument debating a certain unknown. If neither side can prove it one way or the other, do we not simply leave it as unknown? If I can't prove to you that light is a wave, and you can't prove it's a particle, then we leave it up in the air!

In the case of God though, there are rather dire consquences if you chose not to believe in him and find out you're wrong. So 'unknown' does not mean we leave the subject to rest.