In any discussion about the existence of God—or any claim, for that matter—the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If someone asserts that God exists, they are responsible for providing sufficient evidence to support that belief.
Some argue that it is safer or more respectful to believe in God, just in case He exists. They fear that denying God’s existence might offend a good deity. However, the possibility of causing offense is not a rational reason to affirm a belief. Belief should be based on evidence, not fear of consequences.
Agnosticism holds a distinct position from both theism and atheism. An agnostic acknowledges that the existence or non-existence of God is currently unknown or unknowable. While some agnostics may lean toward belief or disbelief, genuine agnosticism involves remaining open to either possibility—provided compelling evidence arises.
Some believers claim that even if there is little or no evidence for God's existence, we should worship Him anyway, just to be fair or safe. However, worship based solely on assumption lacks sincerity. You cannot have a meaningful relationship with a being you are merely guessing exists. To truly know someone, you must move beyond assumptions. If God exists and wants a relationship with humans, it is reasonable to expect that adequate evidence of His existence would be available.
There is a deeper contradiction when one claims to receive divine revelation while admitting God's existence is only an assumption. If God is merely assumed, then any message or command attributed to Him is also based on assumption. A genuine revelation would need to rest on a confirmed foundation, not on hypothetical belief.
Furthermore, if belief in God is based on fear of punishment or hope for reward, rather than conviction based on evidence or experience, that belief is not grounded in reason. A just and good God—if such a being exists—would understand a person's refusal to believe without evidence. Such a God would not demand belief based on guesswork or fear.
Religious traditions often ask believers to make major ethical decisions based on what they claim God wants. But if God's existence is not known with certainty, it is irresponsible to base life-and-death decisions on unverifiable divine commands. For instance, doctrines that prohibit abortion even to save a mother's life rely entirely on the assumption that a specific interpretation of God's will is correct. If God is truly good, omniscient, and just, He would not require us to act on mere assumptions, especially when those assumptions can lead to harm.
In terms of assumptions, if one were to choose between assuming theism or atheism, atheism might be the more reasonable default. Atheism does not claim certainty that God does not exist—it simply withholds belief until sufficient evidence is presented. This makes it a more parsimonious starting point, aligned with how we treat other unproven claims in life.
It's also worth noting that genuine belief often includes emotional engagement. While not all religious believers are outwardly emotional, a consistent lack of passion or concern about God may indicate that God functions more as an abstract idea than as a real presence in one’s life.
Finally, consider a thought experiment: A child named Tony believes that eating white cheese causes bad luck. He says he’s equally sure and unsure of this belief. But in daily life, Tony must choose to eat the cheese or avoid it. His behavior will inevitably lean toward belief or disbelief. Similarly, the agnostic, though professing neutrality, must make choices that either reflect the assumption that God exists—or that He does not. In this sense, even agnosticism involves practical commitments. If acting on the assumption of God’s existence would be wrong if God exists (because it is dishonest), then agnosticism is not truly neutral. It carries implications.