Claims About Who Has The Burden of Proof

I think my original point still stands.

If you make a positive claim about the existence of God then it is up to you to prove that this is the case, not for me to prove otherwise.

Saying that the burden of proof lies with me to disprove your claim is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

TheManualForLife's Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheManualForLife

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• religion
• christain
• atheism
• burden
• of
• proof
• christmas
• bill
• cosby
• manualforlife
• crosshairjack

[AncientAtheist]

Here's my proof -

not a single piece of scientific data shows the existence of a being that created the universe and, in fact, all of the science that "proves" anything shows that the various things Christians ascribe to god, as having had natural causes. You put all of that together and it's a single, powerful piece of evidence against believing in a god, let alone a specific god.

Good to see you! Happy Holidays.

[CrosshairJack]

Smart Man!

[superextremelaser]

I built the sun out of legos

prove me wrong!!!

[CrosshairJack]

Well, we have overwhelming evidence that the sun is a giant ball of flaming hydrogen and no evidence to prove that it is made from lego.

Hopefully this helps.

[LatumWay]

I like this video. One of your best IMO. Faved, and 5 stars.

[CrosshairJack]

Cheers buddy!

[freakOFtheNature]

I'm sick of ignorant fucks. YOU ARE WRONG. Positive claims can be both of existence AND of nonexistence. Logical difference in saying "I do not believe in God" and "I believe that God doesn't exist". Former is a lack of claim later is positive claim requiring a burden of proof.

[debbieomi]

Nice to see you. :-)

[Hereticbooks]

Might as well ask someone to prove that unicorns don't exist, or vampires, or fairies. It's rediculous. I could name hundreds of things that don't exist that I can't prove don't exist. It's just that there's no real evidence that they DO exist.

[FraggedMind]

It's the old "Catch-22" argument. To prove something doesn't exist, proves that it indeed existed at some point in time. (I hope I said that right.)

In basic critical thought and science, if something is asserted to exist, there must be evidence to back up the assertion. Otherwise, it is just faith. (Take into account that some assertions are made with clear notations that there is no CURRENT evidence to support it at this time)