[Maursault]

Thank you for illustrating my point by claiming knowledge, or awareness, or familiarity, of something you also claim does not exist. That is absurd. How can one know anything about something that doesn't exist? You have no evidence that I have hair. Does that mean I am bald? Here's something else you may consider: do numbers exist? Does color exist? Does time? Are you certain? How can you be so certain about something you can not empirically detect? Prove it. Can you be mistaken? Have you never made a mistake? Be skeptical of what you believe you know.

[Bancakes]

>How can you be so certain about something you can not empirically detect?

Spoken like someone without mathematical education. The greatest discoveries are ones outside our finite little toy of a cosmos - ones you could never see, or if you could, could not understand with your limited senses. For example, Galois theory is completely abstract and lets you work without working, and see without seeing.

[stuu99]

The exact opposite is true, god believers are putting for positive claims, atheists are putting forth actual evidence that no one claiming divine beings has been able to put forth any evidence of their position.

You don't seem to grasp human beings fought over their imaginary beings for centuries and created all sorts of drama that had real world political implications, it's nice of you to theory craft from your comfortable chair in the 21st century but the reality is mistaken notions of reality has given birth to centuries of blood and suffering.

So no, your gobbledygook is not neutral, your not some higher reasoning being, you're clueless because I do research in this area and you can test whether words or ideas in language are valid because its a natural phenomenon.

[Maursault]

You are welcome to prove your claims with a proof of impossibility or with evidence of absence. Otherwise, you will not be able to prove that something does not exist the way it has been proven there is no largest prime number.

Basically, you have a strong opinion with nothing substantive to support it. That is all. In effect, you do not know, rather, you believe. You have faith that God does not exist. Deists are no different.

[awb]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

> the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

I think you’re doing the opposite and expecting a burden of disproof instead of a burden of proof.

A burden of disproof is unreasonable and frequently unattainable.

[Maursault]

Not so much. I am not asking those that claim, "God does not exist," to disprove their claim. Regardless of whether the claim is negative or affirmative, the burden of proof is upon the claimant, which is not me.

[ghusto]

We are not claiming gods don't exist. You're claiming they might, and were asking why would you say such a thing.

If I said "It's possible there are teapots orbiting some distant planets", you would hopefully disregard the statement as being nonsense. It is possible, but so what? Putting the word "possible" before something doesn't by itself make it worth my time to think about.

[Maursault]

> We are not claiming gods don't exist.

On the contrary, that is precisely the atheists' claim.

> You're claiming they might

I have made no such claim, making your assertion a straw man fallacy. My claim was only that among atheists, deists and agnostics, only agnostics have a compelling argument. IOW neither atheists' nor deists' arguments have logical nor epistemological merit, and the flaws in their arguments are identical: claiming unknowable knowledge.

[Bancakes]

This is not a court room or a debate. There is no such thing as 'burden of proof'. A hypothesis can be proven correct or false, and both parties are welcome to do so. This is how competitive science works, thankfully not being one-sided.