LogFAQs > #940579573

Damn_Underscore posted...

Or "the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim"

This is a great line to use in an internet argument, but it has no meaning. This is the exact reason why not everyone is an atheist. There is no proof of there being no god, and therefore people will naturally be inspired by things within the universe and/or see those things as proof for themselves for themselves that there is a god.

So while a debate consisting of

Atheist: "There is no proof of a god existing"
Religious person: "There is no proof of a god not existing"
Atheist: "The burden of proof is on you for making the original claim"

may be a rhetorical "win" for the atheist, nothing will result from this debate. If you think the world would be better if everyone was an atheist, this rebuttal is never going to make anyone an atheist. And the statement "there is no proof of a god not existing" is basically the reason why not everyone is going to be an atheist (as mentioned before, the reason why people are specifically religious is that they find proofs/evidence for themselves in whatever religion they believe in).

It's not so much the burden of proof belonging to the one making the claim but rather, if the claim is nearly impossible to falsify, proof needs to be provided with that claim.

The classic example. I say there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between the orbits of Earth and Mars. It could be there or could not be there but my demanding you to prove me wrong is a fairly impossible task thus it's my responsibility to show the evidence I've seen that led me to the conclusion that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun.

Nothing even supernatural about it. Hell we have the technology to put a teapot there if we really wanted to although they did not when this problem was invented.

---

It says right here in Matthew 16:4 "Jesus doth not need a giant Mecha."
https://imgur.com/dQgC4kv