he who asserts the positive has the burden of proof

[srlip]

if you want people to believe that there's a god, or ever was, PROVE it. you can't, so you're a hoaxer. We cannot and do not HAVE to prove a negative. The negative is both the apriori assumption, and by the facts of debate and human knowledge, therefore, nobody can or has to prove a negative. There's not one iota of proof for any religiion's claims, other than perhaps meditation values, never was and never will be. So why do people continue to allow kids to be brainwashed with this garage, hmm?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if you want people to believe that there's a god, or ever was, PROVE it. you can't, so you're a hoaxer. We cannot and do not HAVE to prove a negative. The negative is both the apriori assumption, and by the facts of debate and human knowledge, therefore, nobody can or has to prove a negative. There's not one iota of proof for any religiion's claims, other than perhaps meditation values, never was and never will be. So why do people continue to allow kids to be brainwashed with this garage, hmm?

You are asserting a positive. You are asserting that God does not exist. That is a positive statement. I can prove he exists with prayer and my beliefs. You on the other hand can not prove he does not exist.

 

[thebrucebeat]

if you want people to believe that there's a god, or ever was, PROVE it. you can't, so you're a hoaxer. We cannot and do not HAVE to prove a negative. The negative is both the apriori assumption, and by the facts of debate and human knowledge, therefore, nobody can or has to prove a negative. There's not one iota of proof for any religiion's claims, other than perhaps meditation values, never was and never will be. So why do people continue to allow kids to be brainwashed with this garage, hmm?

You are asserting a positive. You are asserting that God does not exist. That is a positive statement. I can prove he exists with prayer and my beliefs. You on the other hand can not prove he does not exist.

The "not" in his assertion is what makes it a negative.
Next.

 

[MaxGrit]

How about you show proof that "he who asserts the positive has the burden of proof" is true for all assertions.

 

[Nutz]

Why would I want to prove my God to someone who doesn't believe? I can share with you why I believe...but I can't prove anything you don't want to accept. Hell, even if there were irrefutable evidence, you probably still wouldn't believe.

There is absolutely nothing the matter with your disbelief...it has no effect on my faith.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would I want to prove my God to someone who doesn't believe? I can share with you why I believe...but I can't prove anything you don't want to accept. Hell, even if there were irrefutable evidence, you probably still wouldn't believe.

There is absolutely nothing the matter with your disbelief...it has no effect on my faith.

The problem is people like him want to prevent people like us from our religious beliefs. They want to outlaw them, ban them and make them unable to be practiced.

 

[Chuckt]

if you want people to believe that there's a god, or ever was, PROVE it. you can't, so you're a hoaxer. We cannot and do not HAVE to prove a negative. The negative is both the apriori assumption, and by the facts of debate and human knowledge, therefore, nobody can or has to prove a negative. There's not one iota of proof for any religiion's claims, other than perhaps meditation values, never was and never will be. So why do people continue to allow kids to be brainwashed with this garage, hmm?

In Physics, you don't "prove" anything.