I've listened to a lot of debates these days, and this analogy is a very popular approach for atheists to show they have no burden of proof in the debate of God's existence. The argument goes basically like this:
1. if you claim there is an invisible pink unicorn (IPU) in the world, you are the one who has to show sufficient evidence for people to believe in it, and the people who don't believe it clearly don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of IPU.
2. belief in God is like belief in IPU
conclusion: Atheists don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of God.
My question is simply is there any good argument against this argument? I've only learned this analogy is false because it presupposes the non-existence of God so it can make God analogous to something ridiculous. It is like "I don't believe in God and I don't have to show my evidence because of my unbelief in God". It's circular. However that's pretty much all I got on this issue, so are there any better argument you'd like to share? Thanks!
1. if you claim there is an invisible pink unicorn (IPU) in the world, you are the one who has to show sufficient evidence for people to believe in it, and the people who don't believe it clearly don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of IPU.
2. belief in God is like belief in IPU
conclusion: Atheists don't have to show any evidence for the non-existence of God.
My question is simply is there any good argument against this argument? I've only learned this analogy is false because it presupposes the non-existence of God so it can make God analogous to something ridiculous. It is like "I don't believe in God and I don't have to show my evidence because of my unbelief in God". It's circular. However that's pretty much all I got on this issue, so are there any better argument you'd like to share? Thanks!