What are the definitions you're using of "originate," "ultimately originate," and "root cause"? — Terrapin Station

I am ok with what Google returns as first result for "root cause" - an initiating cause of either a condition or a causal chain that leads to an outcome or effect of interest.

That's what "ultimately originating" is also. "Originating" is any other cause within the chain.

Last domino fell because domino before it started to fall and pushed it. This second-to-last domino originated the fall of last domino. But it's not the root cause of last domino's fall. On closer inspection, I pushed the first domino to fall. Yet on even closer inspection, why did I arrange dominoes in a way that they will fall, one after another, when first one is pushed over? What is the truly root cause of last domino's fall?

You agree that sodium acetate is produced in the example above, right? Does that process originate sodium acetate? If not, what's the requirement for "origination" that's not being met? — Terrapin Station

You are mixing "originate" with "ultimately originate" in this discussion. "Ultimately originate" is the root cause.

Vinegar and soda are not the root cause of mixture they produce, because they are created entities themselves, which means that there was a root cause for their creation that existed before they were created.

You are also not seeing, maybe, that reality itself has to have a quality of being able to produce certain element when conditions are met. For example, how did laws of nature come into existence? Those are specific qualities of our reality, which can be measured and which are relatively constant. How did they come into existence and how did the quality of them being constant come into existence?

In order for your mixture to exist, it isn't only that vinegar and soda have to exist. Laws of nature which are specifically set to allow this mixture between vinegar and soda to produce something we label as new also have to exist. And those laws, as a quality of reality, existed before first mixture was produced. Even if those laws somehow changed at certain time, under what process did they change, and how did that process come into existence?

You need to show that the originating cause of our existence is definitely something external to us, and not something which is within us — Metaphysician Undercover

Originating cause of your existence is definitely something external to you. Do you disagree with that? Do you claim that originating cause of your existence is yourself? Then you are the one to prove such claim.

It is what is within the sperm and the ovum which are responsible for the existence of the human being, and there is a continuity of DNA through the process — Metaphysician Undercover

How did first sperm and ovum come into existence? How does continuity of DNA exist? How does process that allows for DNA to exist exist?

You would have to claim that it's not possible for sodium acetate to originate in the vinegar/baking soda combo. — Terrapin Station

New mixture originates from the vinegar/soda mixture, on surface level, or on first level. Honey in my tea originates from a jar, but it doesn't mean that honey ultimately originates from a jar.

Reality has to have real quality of being able to produce what we see as something new, before the act of creation. If it didn't have that real quality, "new" thing would not be produced.

When man's sperm meets woman's egg, it can start a process that results in human being. But if sperm meets anything other than woman's egg, nothing will result from it. Why? Because reality is already set in a way to produce new thing in first case, and nothing in second.

So, mixture produces something new, on surface level, but ultimately, everything needed for this "new" thing to exist already has to be set before mixture is applied. Including that everything needed for vinegar and sodium to exist has to be set before they existed.

New mixture originates from vinegar and soda, but it doesn't ultimately originate from vinegar and soda.

If you say that someone's future decisions are predestined, and so the person doesn't have free will, how can you show this to be true. — wax

That's not the question here. Your decision doesn't have to be predestined in order for you to not have free will. God can make the decision for your decision as time progresses, for example.

The subject is: what is, ultimately, the source of your decisions? And it is impossible for it to be anything that's "within you", since you are created at a certain point in time. Meaning, you came into existence at certain point in time, as opposed to living from eternal past. Which results that you cannot have free will, and is the proof for it.

My only issue with your statement is that there is no consistent means of assigning epistemic probability. — Relativist

There are. But the first thing an atheist does wrong is not understanding what the claim for God actually is, including it's consequences. When you truly understand the claim for God, then you see that it's absolutely impossible for even a single atheist to base his or her position on rational, logical grounds. Same cannot be said for at least some agnostics (who's position is, "I simply don't know, it's 50/50") and at least some people who think or believe that God is real to any degree higher than 50%.

In other words, there are agnostics and people who think or believe that God is real who came to their position on rational, logical reasoning. There is not a single atheist who came to his or her position on rational, logical reasoning (because it's impossible to do so). Again, the reason why it's impossible is found in implications of the claim for God.

How can an agnostic and believer both be rational on this issue and come to different conclusions? It's because agnostic uses only basic assessment, and stops at first conclusion, without going further. We could call it "lazy reasoning." But if agnostic actually understands logical reasoning for God being real but dismisses it in order to stay agnostic, then that's not rational also.

You're reversing the burden of proof. — Relativist

No, I'm stating a fact. It is absolutely impossible to logically show that there is more chance that God doesn't exist than that God does exist. That fact has nothing to do with the Fine tuning argument, so I don't know why you mentioned it in reply to me.

Anyhow, anyone who thinks or believes that there is less than 50% chance that God exists, is irrational on the issue. They are absolutely not thinking logically (on the issue of God being real).

From that irrationality other mistakes follow, including ones you presented in this thread.

You don't have to engage. You still don't have any good argument for your position.

Again, it is impossible to logically show that there is more chance that God doesn't exist than that God does exist. That can be the starting point in understanding anything else.

You presume that because small change within a unit of reality is observable (skin color, for example), an undefined high degree of change must be possible (one that includes going from non-life to human life as the idea of macro evolution states, for example). That's not logically correct. I could use the same "argument" as yours - you are going from a bad argument to a worse one, and I'm not interested in debating evolution with someone who is so ill-informed - and at least it wouldn't be empty.

By the way, laws of nature are certainly randomly set, if they weren't set by conscious creator. That's the definition of random. You can't explain reality with "it is what it is" as an argument.

There is a terminological issue which is frequently overlooked in discussions of whether God exists; which is whether the very word 'exists' is correct in respect of God in the first place. — Wayfarer

I get your point. What do you propose as solution? If not to say "God exists", what to say then? Maybe I missed it in your post...

Life is not the result of a random process. It is the result of complexity arriving through stages of increasing complexity. — Relativist

The logical conclusion to make, exclusively based on probability, is that life is not the result of random process because God created it.

If you want to claim that "life is not not the result of random process" in a reality with no conscious creator of that life, no God, then that's absolutely not true. In such case life is absolutely the result of, ultimately, randomness.

In order to set one level of complexity, random materials are randomly working with other random materials, through randomly set "laws of nature", with the probability for that random process to result in a new, more complex and consistent unit of reality being near 0% or an absolute 0%. If it is even possible that new, more complex and consistent unit of reality comes into existence this way, that unit of reality now faces even greater hurdle of fighting the odds that newer, even more complex unit of reality will come out of it, through the next cycle of randomness.

With each next stage the already impossible odds diminish even more, exponentially.

When we get to a human, a highly complex being with highly complex consciousness, odds that such being came into existence through history of practically innumerable stages of gradual increases in complexity, driven by randomness, is practically or absolutely 0%.

There are various basic problems with the idea of macro evolution in a reality without God.

For example, we haven't observed a single case where a non-human being evolved into a human or other being with 100% observable and demonstrable human-like consciousness and abilities that result from that level of consciousness. So, based on our observations, nobody can claim that such feat has to be possible. In other words, not only is there a small chance for it to happen, it actually might not be even possible. The only way to claim that it has to be possible is to assume 100% chance that creator of our reality doesn't exist, but that's extremely bad assumption, because it is impossible to logically show that there is more chance that God doesn't exist than that God does exist.

Or the whole idea of "natural selection", for example. "Nature" doesn't consciously select anything, so the term is either directly or indirectly intended to deceive. But not only doesn't nature select things, natural environments themselves are an unconscious result of previous random processes (in a reality without God).

Much more importantly, what's ill labeled as "natural selection" is, within macro evolution paradigm, only a consequence of observable law of our reality which says - randomness produces new, more complex units of reality at the rate of near or an absolute 0%. The consequence of this law is that most random connections are either failures or status quo. Hence, "natural selection". Since it's a consequence of the nature of assumed possible change, it's not a driver of said change. As such, it is not a factor that should be taken into account, in any capacity, to explain the existence of change. In other words, what's deceptively labeled "natural selection" can only, theoretically, show the rate of proposed change, not the change itself.

Your analysis depends on the assumption there is something objectively special about life. — Relativist

I don't see it that way. My analysis here comes from applying probability thinking, defined within mathematics, that results in conclusion that there is almost or absolutely no chance that life is a result of random process.

That means that there is practically or absolutely 100% chance that source of our life is, ultimately, something other than randomness.

One can argue whether opposite to randomness is only God or there are some other possibilities. But I don't see what those other possibilities would be. I think that when we go through the issue, we come to only two possibilities - either randomness or God. Mind you, God here is not identified outside of fundamental meaning for God - eternal conscious creator of our reality.

There are only two possibilities here, not a random amount of possibilities. Either process of creation is random or it's not random. And when we observe our world, I think that the only true conclusion is that it's either practically or absolutely impossible that creation of our reality is, ultimately, random, meaning without consciousness that drives the process of creation.

The only consciousness, ultimately, that can drive the process of creation of our reality is God, because that's what God is - eternal conscious creator of our reality. God is the reality, and then God creates a reality. Since God is, by definition, completely conscious from eternity past, meaning God was completely conscious always, God is not a result of randomness. We cannot understand how God can exist for eternity, as is, without creation through some random process of unconscious evolution, but there is no natural law that says that we have to understand everything about reality.

One can argue over God's identity, whether God has this or that characteristic, and make up billion possibilities, but all those possibilities would still be God. We could also make a theory about billion possible universes that randomly existed prior to ours, but all those possibilities would be uncounscious entities, random drivers of creation, and as such there would be practical or absolute 0% chance that any of those possibilities are the ultimate source of our reality.

It is not only possible that God exists. If we take into consideration accepted observations about our reality, God exists with highest certainty. If you don't want to take such consideration, it is still impossible to reasonably come to conclusion that there is more chance that God doesn't exist than that God does exist.

The prior probability of any specific world existing is infinitesmal (not strictly zero) and yet some world would have to exist, since SOMETHING has to exist. — Relativist

The issue is about probability for created unit of reality to exist. We are created unit of reality, meaning we are created through a process, we don't exist as is in eternity.

With any other potential world, the issue is the same. Was that world created through a process or does that world exist as is in eternity? In any case, though, we exist and we are created. That means that there is practical or an absolute 0% probability that we are created through some random unconscious act of some other prior potential world.

If something has to exists, as you say, that includes possibility for God to exist, not exclusively some undefined world or worlds. And then, just taking into account randomness in our reality, we can conclude that there is practical or an absolute 100% chance that God, conscious creator of our reality, exists, since there's opposite probability that we exist as a result of randomness.

I didn't read the whole thread. Now I see your response from previous page which is in the same line of reasoning as mine.

Is existence created from random chance or is it designed? — xxxdutchiexxx

This is not a philosophical question, but mathematical, since you are trying to find out what is the probability between two options. We can use Bayesian probability method to find the answer.

Based on generally accepted observations we have about our reality, there is either practical or an absolute 0% chance that we exist, ultimately, as a result of randomness. (Idea of macro evolution in a reality without God is ultimately a random process of creation, or in other words, result of randomness.)

Christians are limiting God by saying God can't simply forgive out of mercy, but he *needs/requires* punishment/justice to let go of the sinners. — Rd007

God already forgives out of mercy, because penalty for sin is death, non-existence, yet billions of sinners who sin every day are alive.

What you are asking when you talk about forgiveness is about God allowing sinners to have eternal life with Him, but that's more complex issue than simply only forgiveness.

Why would God bother to create people on earth who have a capacity to sin? — Relativist

It's a good question. I have an understanding that I think is true and explains a lot. And is based on the Bible. But I don't want to give it here, really. Not that I want to tease something. I am just personally convinced not to eagerly share what I believe to be good part of the answer.

That said, if God wants you to have an understanding to that question, you will have that understanding.

At the same time, even without having clean understanding now, you could accept that God has a just plan and that His plan makes sense, but that God has timing when we will get full understanding of it, for which there is also a reason.

By the way, when you say that God causes pains for people in this life, that's not a true picture. It's a judgement against God based on incomplete information. Since we are sinners, we are quick to judge God, but we only understand part of reality. So any judgement a human makes against God is deficient. Not to mention that it's an evil act, defeating the purpose of judgement in the first place. You might argue that something is self-evident, but until rather recent period of human existence, it was not self-evident that a moving picture can be transmitted over thousands of miles of oceans and lands, through air, in a split second, from one hand-held device to the other.

Evil exists, but how and why it exists is not self-evident, in my understanding.

There is no "free will" so your argument is wrong in premises 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Maybe 6 is technically true but since it would be detrimental to reality, as I understand it, if God created beings with free will, I don't think that God even weighs the option of creating free will beings.

Under "free will", for the sake of this discussion, I am primarily referring to a capability to choose to do either good or evil depending on personal freedom and desire/want.

Bible doesn't say that beings in Heaven have free will. Satan is rebelling against God but Bible doesn't directly say that he rebelled as his free will choice. In general, we have very limited information about beings in Heaven.

As for humans, apostle Paul writes in Romans, "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God."

On Earth, a human is a slave to sin, without possibility to choose whether he will do good or evil, while in Heaven, resurrected humans will be fully established slaves to God, and will only be able to do good. A human who believes that Jesus Christ paid for his sins on the cross and resurrected on the third day still sins in flesh. Apostle Paul says: "I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing."

There are serious logical problems and practically blasphemous implications of free will allowed by God, as I see it, but we don't even have to get into that. It is enough that the Bible is not a witness for human free will. Many Christians will object to that, but Bible is also a complex book - "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, to search out a matter is the glory of kings," Proverbs 25:2 - so human's say on the issue, even if it's from majority of Christians, is not what decides what's true and what's not. (Proverbs are written for believers, not unbelievers, by the way, so God is saying to believers that He hides things and leaves them to be searched out, which means that believers will find some truth of the Bible while here. This sheds some light on why there are many denominations and views on various Biblical issues among Christians.)

Anyway, "free will" is not true explanation for existence of evil.

Evil exists, by the way, for a certain period of time within a certain part of whole reality. Evil is a problem in a sense that it's a sin, but it's not a problem in a sense that God created a problem.

Your claim that "the argument from evil is an inference that a 3-omni God cannot exist, because this is inconsistent with the presence of so much evil in the world" is arbitrary.

Bible gives a lot to answer why evil exists in a reality with God who is love, much more than one would see at a glance, but that's hidden.

Why doesn't God clear up confusion between believers who misinterpret his word?

We are all sinners while we are in flesh, so it is not a question of God clearing up confusion, but us being sinners in flesh, including Christians, and sinners misinterpret God's word. Adam had one very simple and straightforward command to follow and he failed at that. You could have most clear and simple explanation for what you want to know, and you would still sin against God.

What Christians don't misinterpret is that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose on the third day. Other than that, it's God's grace what one will truly understand while here. Apostle Paul says that we are now seeing through a glass darkly.

You can ask, why did God create sinners and gave them a slice of reality to live in for a certain period of time, but that's another discussion. And I don't think that's really a discussion for unbelievers.

I think it's useless to use the term at face value. I like percentages much more. Although one doesn't calculate them with math, everybody has a ballpark. So, the question is: "On a scale from 0% to 100%, with 0% being an absolute conviction that God doesn't exist, and 100% being an absolute conviction that God exists, where would you say you are?"

Agnostic is at 50%.

Reflecting on your brilliance — Banno

Thank you. If I find some of your brilliance, I'll return the favor.

Real theism, one that we witness on Earth, not some abstract idea of theism, is quite unreasonable regardless if this universe is created by nature or not. — Banno

It's kind of endearing, I guess, that you are reversing my words to write your own posts.

The rest is up to the mods to decide what is a low-value post/thread. — Akanthinos

Of course, after pages of completely unsuccessfully presenting atheism as being a reasonable conclusion, deletion of one's own public failure is the next best option.

And my conclusion is that theists, both in general and those most prominent ones, are:

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God — Banno

If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed that in your case order goes 2 then 1. So I'll start with 2.

2 is basically meaningless, since Christians learn about God through God's conviction and God's word. They are lead supernaturally, not by their own reason. Not that anybody's perfect here, by design. People from other religions also don't reason on their own about God, if they are convicted in their beliefs. It is just that their conviction comes from devil, so it's not really that they are unreasonable but deceived.

1 comes as a result of 2, so it can't be unreasonable as presented because it's Spirit lead. But as an example, when one calculates probability for the existence of life by chance or unconscious process, result is mathematical impossibility. Siding with basic mathematical result is quite a reasonable way to interpret nature. Fighting with such result would be unreasonable, as OP states.

By the way, this reminded me about a point that it can be argued that Christians are disproportionately more *convicted in their understanding that God exists than people from other religions. So this reasonable/unreasonable thing about theists is probably flawed as a general view since not all groups of "theists" have equal distribution of those who are convicted that God exists.

*Convicted - as a result of supernatural conviction, having a full understanding that God exists, not just thinking or believing that God exists

All arguments in favor of the non-existence of God that have been provided on this thread are unreasonable and have been shown why. I am not going to go through all of them and copy and paste them. Again, all it takes is a single one reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God and this OP is not absolutely true.

As for your question on what universal basis rationality can be said to be missing, that's a good question in fact.

Shortly, it is a sin that blocks you from rationality.

But if you want some secular reasoning, there are more than one parts to it, and I'm not going to go through all of them, since I don't have them in compact written form, but among the main ones is that nothing that humans can observe and measure can show that God doesn't exist.

Humans are within creation and can observe and measure:

1) only creation, by default,
2) until God presents Himself and reveals them some other possible place or reality

In case of observing and measuring creation, nothing can be observed nor measured to disprove existence of God, because God could make creation however He wants. We have no way of knowing what is probable or not and by how much. As a result, there is no known natural law that says that if God exists, humans would have to be able to understand that God exists. Not to mention that there is no known natural law that says that humans have to understand everything about reality.

In relation to God, what's observed and measured can at best provide insights in possible character of God.

But while nothing can show the non-existence of God, something can possibly show small probability that the world was not created with plan and purpose, but by some chance or unconscious process. That's for example calculated mathematical impossibility that life originated by some chance process. It's still possible in real life, but that possibility is impossible in mathematical sense, and reasonable conclusion is that this mathematical impossibility points to God.

Again, nothing can be calculated to point the other way, so reasonable thinking already leans towards God, although one can also reasonable argue neutral agnostic position.

In second case God presents Himself.

So, being reasonable, one is either neutral agnostic or thinks or believes that there's God.

That's not my God. That's your God. — Banno

You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed. But, again and again, this thread is not about God of the Bible.

I asked you about one quote, you come back explaining the other.

There is no reductio ad absurdum from my argument in what you quoted, in part because Banno is falsely presenting what I've said, though probably not on purpose. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

But anyway, there is really very simple way to show that OP is false, at least in it's absolute claim.

Just provide one single reasonable argument in favor of the non-existence of God. Not a single one has been provided here yet, and not only that, I don't think I have ever heard or read such a thing.

If you want to go by what you quoted, that since God exists it is extraordinary that atheists exist, hence God doesn't exist, that's not it. Because there is no known natural law that says that if God exists every human would understand that He exists.

As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

If you don't believe that God exists, why would you even bother discussing His presumed characteristics at such length. At the same time, what glorious outcome can it be for you to speak the way you speak, and it turns out God exists and has recorded all the things you said. It looks like a loose-loose situation, or masochistic-masochistic situation.

What exactly about Banno's quote is reversal of which of my arguments about atheists? Can you be precise?

If you want examples, go through this thread and you'll see unreasonable arguments for the non-existence of God given, including your own, and my response to those arguments.

Let's use something from last page.

Banno said: "If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable."

That's simply bad logic.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable.

It's just a man's opinion. And there is surely no law that says that a human's opinion has to be true.

So what can one conclude about what Banno said? Nothing about whether God exists or not.

You want to be able to freely deny God however you like, and publicly so, but when time comes for some accountability, for some examination of your thoughts, then all of a sudden let's talk definitions because atheists in fact are not hard, they are soft, etc. Build some spine, man.

Here's what is a soft atheist - one that believes or thinks that there is no God or god or gods, but is open to being convinced.

Or, maybe to use this definition - one that believes that existence of God is an extraordinary claim with no proof, so he or she rejects it until the claim is proven to said atheist.

Are those definitions of a soft-atheist good enough?

That kind of an atheist is part of my OP. He or she still doesn't believe that God exists, regardless of how open they are to change their minds sometime in the future. Today their minds aren't changed and they don't believe or think that God exists.

I say they came to that conclusion through unreasonable thought process.

So your evidence for God is that you suspected it existed some time ago? — VagabondSpectre

Where did I say that evidence for God is that I suspected it existed some time ago, whatever that sentence actually means?

Anyway, I don't really have to share my experience with you. Whatever I would share here would probably go to waste, so I am not going to do it. But if you are really open to know, you can find many people who can share their experience with you. But, again, this thread is not about proving that God exists.

And, by the end of this post, you still haven't provided an example. — Akanthinos

I did, by replying to various posts on this thread.

Are you saying that majority of atheists are equally unsure of both God creating the world and the world coming to existence by some form of chance or unconscious process lead by big bang and evolution? Are you saying they are equally rigorous towards both claims?

As I have written couple of times, I exclude that group. But I don't think that majority of people who consciously regard themselves as atheists are in that group.

One of the definitions of an atheist is that it's "the person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". Yes, there are broader and less broader definitions. So? I am using one of the public definitions and I am reffering to people who don't believe in the existence of God. Those people, by the way, have at least some thoughts about origin of life, since they have already been thinking whether God exists or not, and no surprise, they mostly believe in or favor materialistic explanation of existence including big bang, evolution and other similar stuff. You know, all the stuff they have been listening during all the years of their education. What are you up about then?

Earlier you told me that the evidence for God is not natural, but super-natural. You do realize how silly that sounds right? Let me guess what you really mean by supernatural evidence: "evidence that I am unable to explain, share, or demonstrate exists; it's rationally useless". — VagabondSpectre

Well, you guessed wrong. Or even completely misread what I've written, since I can't remember I mentioned anything about "supernatural evidence". Supernatural, as I meant it, is outside of what we normally perceive as natural. Super means above, over, added to.

If some Amazonian tribe got to witness wireless communication, that would be supernatural to them. Outside of their perception of what's possible within reality.

I can explain supernatural experiences I've had. But I really won't do it here. It's no evidence to you anyway. I could have a natural experience about something, for example I could feel suspicion towards something, but I can't prove to you that some time ago I felt that suspicion.

Your argument is essentially this... — ProbablyTrue

No, what you wrote is not what my argument essentially is, but... what can I say at page five. Maybe I'll get back to your post later, not right now.

Maybe you could give examples? — ProbablyTrue

I did reply throughout this thread. One can't force an information, just provide it.

Then wouldn't it be appropriate for you to set out the atheistic arguments that are so poor, and show us the error of our ways? — Banno

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP.

The problem is that all the arguments I have read or heard are flawed. I would have to list them all and then explain them all. Or I would have to list them all for me privately, and then somehow rank them and explain most prominent or most regular ones. I could have done that, but I didn't.

This thread has some decent number of posts, though, and I haven't seen one reasonable argument to deny existence of God.

And again, I am not even arguing for the existence of God here. A position of neutral agnosticism can be reasonably argued, as I see it.

So again we just have to believe you. — Banno

Nobody has to believe me.

This thread is about how atheists come to their conclusion through unreasonable thought process. Nothing to do with people believing me or not about the existence of God.

A neutral agnostic can sit down and examine how an atheist, one who rejects that God exists, reasoned for his or her position, and conclude that the reasoning was flawed.

Even an atheist can do a self-examination and come to the same conclusion.

Satan has spoken to me supernaturally. — ProbablyTrue

If satan spoke to you supernaturally, then you have been told a lie.

So God hides himself, only allowing a few to know him, damning the others. — Banno

There's a much more serious and sorrowful explanation than what you wrote. But I am not going to write it here. One doesn't need to know it, in order to believe in God.

By the way, as I remember, Hitchens used to proclaim how burden of proof is on those who say that God exists.

That's really rich.

There is a mathematical impossibility that universe, with all the complexities of life, comes from some chance or unconscious process, and one has a gall to talk about who has a burden of proof or not.

Here's from wikipedia: "Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."

Isn't this description true?

I understand how limited this "razor" is, but limitation should be included in "razor" itself. Like:

"In a debate between two opponents, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I took the claim as originaly stated. I don't need to learn about the claim to use it. As originaly stated, claim is basically nonsense.

If one wants to define it more precisely, I can take the claim like that too. If the claim is: "In a debate between two opponents, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence", I can agree with it or not, but that claim has nothing to do with what's true.

Furthermore, it says what can be done, not what is the wisest way to react in order to get to the truth or closest to the truth as possible.