Except that’s not how burden of proof works. To be atheist, is simply to reject the claim that there is a God or gods. You don’t require proof that something doesn’t exist, you have to prove when something does exist.
I can claim I banged your mom last night, but as the ancient philosophers say, pics or it didn’t happen.
yeaaa but I didnt make the Claim god exist, I ask why is the proof he doesnt exist. and he try to throw the burden of proof at me and treated it as a answer. So that’s a logical fallacy
Asking to prove a negative is also a fallacy. But to answer the question, there isn’t proof of there not being any of the gods proposes throughout human history. To use the reasoning you’re trying to force us into, they must all be true. Except that’s ridiculous.
You might chime in with “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, and that is correct. So we can’t say for sure (prove) that any of these gods exist. We await the presentation of evidence of existence that will get us out of this impasse you’ve put the argument in. It shouldn’t be difficult, if any of them exist.
you theoretically can prove a negative and is not considered a logical fallacy, and I am sure a reasonable and rational being can prove their objective claims with better objective evidence rather than give me nothing
That’s not a proof it doesn’t exist though. See, you fell into the trap you tried to catch us in.
I can say the same thing, if I look for certain evidence that whatever god in question should have and don’t find it, then the likelihood of that existence decreases. But of course each god has their own characteristics, which is why we asked you to clarify a god to question.
but it would theoretically exist? a record of the entire orbital ring of jupiter that a teapot would inhabit would be a theoretically existing object if it was created
You begin with the assumption that a God to be disproved exists. That’s where you went wrong. You decided to believe the God claim without evidence to back it up in the first place.
if the proof is that no Spiritual influence has ever occurred on Earth we would need to give a natural explanation for each and every miracle and spiritual miracle that appeared in human history which would be next to impossible to do
you have replaced my question with a nearly impossible premise with your argument
why would I? when you asserted they were naturalistic. I made no such assertions on the topic and merely asked a question. so the burden of proof falls on you
if that is your answer, that is called the
Burden of Proof Fallacy
Basically, that’s not an answer and is quite illogical to ask that
Except that’s not how burden of proof works. To be atheist, is simply to reject the claim that there is a God or gods. You don’t require proof that something doesn’t exist, you have to prove when something does exist.
I can claim I banged your mom last night, but as the ancient philosophers say, pics or it didn’t happen.
yeaaa but I didnt make the Claim god exist, I ask why is the proof he doesnt exist. and he try to throw the burden of proof at me and treated it as a answer. So that’s a logical fallacy
That’s a complete misunderstanding of how burden of proof works.
Why do you believe I didn’t bang your mom?
Asking to prove a negative is also a fallacy. But to answer the question, there isn’t proof of there not being any of the gods proposes throughout human history. To use the reasoning you’re trying to force us into, they must all be true. Except that’s ridiculous.
You might chime in with “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, and that is correct. So we can’t say for sure (prove) that any of these gods exist. We await the presentation of evidence of existence that will get us out of this impasse you’ve put the argument in. It shouldn’t be difficult, if any of them exist.
you theoretically can prove a negative and is not considered a logical fallacy, and I am sure a reasonable and rational being can prove their objective claims with better objective evidence rather than give me nothing
Prove there isn’t a teapot orbiting around Jupiter right now.
that is theoretically possible, you just have to look around the orbit area of Jupiter and where the teapot will orbit given its mass and weight
That’s not a proof it doesn’t exist though. See, you fell into the trap you tried to catch us in.
I can say the same thing, if I look for certain evidence that whatever god in question should have and don’t find it, then the likelihood of that existence decreases. But of course each god has their own characteristics, which is why we asked you to clarify a god to question.
but it would theoretically exist? a record of the entire orbital ring of jupiter that a teapot would inhabit would be a theoretically existing object if it was created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Atheists deny God’s existence. You say God exists. Yes, the burden of proof does indeed rest with you and not they. Get over it.
when did I say god exists??? I merely ask what evidence is there that he didnt??? wtf you mean???
You begin with the assumption that a God to be disproved exists. That’s where you went wrong. You decided to believe the God claim without evidence to back it up in the first place.
when did i state that god exist?
I didn’t say you stated it. It is the assumption with which you began this argument.
my assumption??? I think you mean your assumption. cause I didnt state God exist
Damn bro, you got em. Atheist is now illegal. Please let the pope know it.
God doesnt exist. Proof: no “spiritual” influence has ever occurred on earth.
the bible is not a factual account.
that is Petitio Principii
if the proof is that no Spiritual influence has ever occurred on Earth we would need to give a natural explanation for each and every miracle and spiritual miracle that appeared in human history which would be next to impossible to do
you have replaced my question with a nearly impossible premise with your argument
No, you would first need to prove any of those things actually happened. The ones in the Bible are just made up stories with no evidence.
why would I? when you asserted they were naturalistic. I made no such assertions on the topic and merely asked a question. so the burden of proof falls on you
no point debating with someone who fundamentally misunderstands the principals. good luck with your endeavours.