The you tube video is no longer available, so let's start this topic over.
First let's agree to try and avoid any prejudice of presumption, other than the laws of logic. So, for example, I will not presume anything supernatural DOESN'T exist, nor that anything supernatural DOES exist. I will, however, presume that logical contradiction is not allowed, etc.
Given no information, should we assume anything? Sure. We should assume that WHATEVER we are told is false. EVERYTHING. So, for example. "God DOESN'T exist" is false. "God EXISTS" is false. "You are guilty of the crime you're accused of" is false. "Your are INNOCENT of the crime you're accused of" is also false, although western legal systems make this assumption (prior to any evidence being presented) in order to protect their citizens. This is a social norm, but logically it is incorrect. We don't KNOW you're innocent until we know something about the case. Remember, all of these premises depend on "GIVEN NO INFORMATION".
Given no information, we are all agnostics. No one knows God exists, or doesn't.
Does this mean atheism is the correct presumption? depends on your definition of atheism. Some understand atheism to mean "there is no God", in which case atheism cannot be presumed. If by atheism we mean "NO BELIEF IN GOD'S EXISTENCE" then it is a correct presumption because it says "God exists" is false. It does NOT say "God doesn't exist" is true. Many self-described atheists do say "God doesn't exist" which is an assertion that cannot be presumed.
Again, if the term atheism is used correctly, it simply means a-theism or no belief in a theist God. As such, it should be presumed, given complete ignorance. This correctly places the burden of proof on theism. There is no burden of proof on atheism. If, however, atheism means "belief that God does not exist" then it is an assertion, which should be presumed false and carries a burden of proof.
I don't believe Zeus exists. I don't need to prove this.
I don't believe unicorns exist. I don't need to prove this.
I don't believe pink elephants, mermaids, leprauchons, and tooth fairies exist. I don't need to prove this.
I don't believe God exists. I don't need to prove this.
Now, let's add information. Does this information prove pink elephants exist? or that our existence is logically impossible without them? Be careful not to use ANY prejudice or presumptions not supported by valid information. Surely direct, empirical information about the existence of pink elephants would be helpful. Since none is available, the presumption (they don't exist) remains. Is there any evidence of their effect on what can be observed? If so, is it impossible that this effect was caused by something else? if not, they exist. But how could you possibly know? You'd have to rule out the possibility that anything else could have caused the observed effect. This is where it gets fuzzy, because ruling out causes depends on your understanding of the effect. If your understanding of the causes and the effect itself is insufficient, you're invoking the argument from personal incredulity.
Seems to me we are stuck with the unfalsifiable presumption that "God exists" is false. All available information I'm aware of is insufficient to prove God exists. This doesn't mean he doesn't exist, only that belief in his existence is presumptuous.
Also, seems to me we are stuck with the unfalsifiable presumption that "God doesn't exist" is false. All available information I'm aware of is insufficient to prove God doesn't exist. This doesn't mean he does exist, only that belief in his non-existence is presumptuous.
So there is no knowledge, and no basis for reasonable belief. What about faith? Faith is the attributing of significance to belief which has zero percent certainty. In other words, it is the violation of the presumption of falseness, and an unwarranted exemption from the burden of proof.
Therefore, faith is not reasonable.