Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Esquilax]

A theist needs to have a definite concept of God in whose existence he believes.

And I'm willing to bet that, outside of your desperation to just prove atheists wrong no matter what, your concept of god is not "a dog." That's why I don't think a serious discussion on this topic would include such dishonest arguments, and I still don't understand why you'd want us to proffer a concept of god that might not match what you believe.

Why not just skip the "As an atheist, I believe that god is X!" "As a theist, I don't believe that god is X!" step, and just get down to what you do think god is, and actually have the discussion? Why do you care so much about which concept of god we don't believe in, when if your concept of god is different and, you know, realistic, we would start believing in it?

But an atheist, I presume, is not a machine built for shooting down random theistic concepts of God.

He is a human being.

Yes, and we address god claims on a case by case basis. Just because we don't find one concept of god to be valid, doesn't mean we won't find another valid, so long as it's cogent and presented in a non-contradictory manner.

So, in a sense, if you say god is a dog, then I guess in your worldview I am not an atheist. But I don't accept that god is a dog either, only because we already have a word for it, and that word is dog. It's not a useful or valid position to take to say "If I say this dog is god, then ha ha, you're not an atheist!" That still doesn't make me a christian, which is what you're trying to convince me of.

As a result, he can't just sit there waiting for a random theist to inform him of his personal idea of God (which may well be "dog") and then get all excited and try to refute it.

Sure I can. That's why I'm here. Of every god concept theists have legitimately tried to have me accept, I have rejected them all. And I'm here because I enjoy theological debate on this topic. So actually... yes, I can just sit there waiting to assess god claims thrown at me, on their own merit. Why wouldn't you do the same thing? Is your position that immutable and rigid?

The atheist is not spared the necessity of coming up with his own full-featured worldview. He must know what he believes and what he does not believe. He needs to articulate for himself a finite personally significant number of concepts of God and prove that none of those exist in reality.

The burden of proof is on both of us.

But I think both of us could benefit from the recognition that we don't know everything, and that additional knowledge could eventually change our positions, yes? At present, no god claim that has been presented to me has been accepted: I am an atheist to all the god claims I have ever come across. A future god claim could change that tomorrow, but it would have to be presented to me.

As to the burden of proof, no. I don't have to disprove any god claim; the burden of proof is on positive claims, not disbelief. Do you have to prove wrong every claim you don't believe? Have you disproven leprechauns yet?