I have come to a disturbing, albeit, more realistic, realization recently. I have been comfortable for a while believing that atheists have absolutely no burden of proof when debating with theists the merits of their beliefs and, especially, their lack of beliefs. However, I am beginning to see things differently. I have taken one more step back, you might say.

And what do I see, you might ask? I see that the atheist who not only rejects false religious claims but also strives to understand the truth of reality, cannot achieve this understanding without taking the step I have taken and looking at reality from that vantage. Atheists are not off the hook by rejecting religion. Like theists, atheists also have a burden of proof when debating worldviews.

Before I reveal this realization, let me explain what it has done for me. It has helped me to better understand deism. To the extent that deism is a philosophy that accepts a personal deity, a single deity, or a deity at all in the sense of a single force acting outside the laws of nature or being outside nature itself, deism is certainly irrational, because there is simply no way to know or reason to suspect the truthfulness of these specific claims. However, to the extent that deism accepts the possibility of a source(s) of creation and stops at this level of detail, although this is scarcely enough detail to constitute an -ism, deism scribbles a rational frame of discourse.

It is not that I have been loath to admit this. I never realized it until recently. So what is IT exactly?

The universe is spatiotemporally either infinite or finite. Either way, it contains what we recognize as information. Information is essentially a recognition of ordered difference. Yet, order is necessarily the result of recognizing difference. Therefore, difference is a basic recognition of current spatiotemporal existence.

Moreover and to be precise, given that space and time are interdependent, neither space nor time would exist in any form without some level of difference both within and between them. Something cannot come from nothing. That is, difference cannot arise from sameness. Difference must come from something different.

Is that difference what I call God? No. We need better  terminology. We need a name that does not carry thousands of years of supernatural baggage. The name of God, we should all be able to agree, is anything but that name.

You might wonder if this admission makes me the newest advocate of Intelligent Design. Again, no. Like God, ID is a nominal reference that has been weighted down with reference to supernatural conceptions. And by definition, nothing in nature is supernatural, because nothing in nature is not wholly part of nature, which includes bounds of physical law.

Where does this leave us? It leaves us with a realization that a logical defense of a logical worldview compels us to consider the possibility of a natural, creative force(s) that does or did exist in the universe. It or they need not be eternal or existent. These peripheral considerations are details  that occur beyond the level of our awareness.

Remember what we, as atheists, constantly ask theists. We ask, Have you considered the possibility that maybe God does not exist? Likewise, ask yourselves, my atheistic friends, Have you considered the possibility that something else does? The Big Bang did not create itself, you know.