Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.

The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.

The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.

This is not twisting science... this is simply how science works.  Any scientific experience has the hypothesis and the null hypothesis.  The null hypothesis is simply "my hypothesis is wrong".  The null hypothesis is the default position in science.  You can argue that the null hypothesis shouldn't be the default position, but claiming atheists are "twisting" science is simply not true.

The burden of proof does lie on the person making a claim.  Whether or not that claim is outlandish or not has nothing to do with it.

And no, atheists are not making the claim that something came out of nothing.  This is a pathetic strawman used by apologists to weasel out of their burden of proof. 

Atheism means you do not accept the claim that god exists.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is absolutely not a claim that the universe came from nothing.  Atheists may or may not believe that the universe was created from nothing.  It is not a requirement. 

My position, and the position of many other atheists, is that I do not know how the universe came into existing.  I am making no claim about the creation of the universe, so there is no burden of proof on my end.  I am simply not believing your claim.  This is not saying it is wrong, simply that you have not sufficiently proved it.

If you want to make the claim that a creator does exist, you are making a claim, and you need to prove it. 

Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.

Yeah... if you're going to claim that a being exists outside of space and time, that's an example of the kind of thing you have to prove.

Why are we wasting time discussing this stuff? You can make a religion with spaghetti and meatballs and make tons of cash. Tax Free!

We should be using our time and resources for such endeavors.

Well you cannot prove or disprove God so the topic ends there. But what the athiests or agonists of this thread are saying is wrong in that they say 'some' for believers and 'most' for rejecters while the opposite is mkst undeniably true. Most people believe in God and some do not. Also I am sick of ignorant people pitting science against religion while they are not mutually exclusive. Infact many theories and laws and hypothesis if not most that we research were proposed by believers and it is just the trend of modern athiests to claim science and understanding as their own when they have not done nearly enough to make that claim. A scientist may most likely be a believer and believers are scientists so this argument is a vocal minority vs people willing to entertain them.

Well, if there is a way to do it nobody has yet, and until they can I am not going to believe in God, not will I understand why people will believe in something without proof.

That looks like freaking alien than a spaghetti but the slogan is epic xD

You do not understand my point -- or need to play apologist for aethiesm apparently. You are writing the null hypothesis to state that god does not exist, when in reality that is a hypothesis in and of itself. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be easily flip flopped. From a philisophical and scientific stand point (based on what we know at this given time), you are applying your own personal bias by deeming that yours is NOT a hypothesis.

Aethists believe in NOTHING -- Literally thats THE definition of aethism. Carl sagan himself refused to be labeled as a athiest for this exact reason. You claim this is an argument over symantics, but the point remains. If you are unsure of what the cause of the universe is -- you are an AEGNOSTIC. 

The problem that most "aethiests" have is that they do not understand theology -- they simply assume that god is a guy sitting on a throne in the sky (akin to most creation myths). Even the bible itself references god as being something incomprehensible and outside of anything the human brain can comprehend.  This falls inline with a higher dimensional "being". The big bang itself can even be considered "god".

The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.

See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox yet still claim it.

You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox ( unless you are an aethiest apparently).