It really is. lol

I don't know.

The burden of proof is on the party claiming god does exist to prove it

How so? Did a judge decide that?

No? It's a basic logical concept

It really isn't.

Yes it is

Okay, refer me to your source.

I am still waiting, @Dagrad.

Oh you are fucking kidding me

My message gets deleted

Right, and why is the party that claims that God does exist any different than the party that claims that God does not exist in your active-vs-passive scenario?

Ok imma retype it

I read it.

The burden of proof can only be on the active or passive side. The active side is the one that has a belief, or is performing an action. The passive side is the one that does not have a belief, or is not performing an action.

There are an infinite number of things you are not doing, and an infinite number of things you don't believe in. It is logically impossible to prove/justify them all, therefore the burden of proof CANNOT be on the passive side. Since this is a true dichotomy, the burden of proof must be on the active side.

Claiming that something *doesn't* exist is a negative claim, which means that its the passive stance. Claiming that something *does* exist is a positive claim, which means that is the active stance.

Like I said, I already read that.

I can see it in logs.

i added something

> Right, and why is the party that claims that God does exist any different than the party that claims that God does not exist in your active-vs-passive scenario?
@Vlad

"Claiming that something doesn't exist is a negative claim, which means that its the passive stance. Claiming that something does exist is a positive claim, which means that is the active stance."

But anyways, lets assume that i do have to prove that god doesn't exist for some reason, i will

Is your god omnipotent

I don't know.

Do you believe in a god?

Not really.

What's next then?

Well if you do believe in a god that is indeed omnipotent

Why do I have to?

That god cannot exist since omnipotence itself is logically impossible

I didn't say you have to

i said *if*

But you're positioning the argument as if I had to.

No I'm not

What if I don't believe in an omnipotent god?

Then my argument doesn't apply to your god

Okay, so how does your argument prove that there is no God?

I should have specified that it disproves the idea of a christian god

Since the christian god is omnipotent, and omnipotence is logically impossible

Why can't God transcend human logic?

@Vlad Your logic

GG @Dagrad, you just advanced to level 25!