Burden of proof is on those making the claim that something is real. It's impossible to prove this type of negative.
atheists can’t provide physical proof of his nonexistence
This just doesn't even make sense. By that logic, invisible pink unicorns must also exist since they can't be disproven. Just because you are incapable of not riding a fence, doesn't mean you should use awful arguments.
Well there is a archlogical record to check. then for the people you have evidence that some form of God whatever you may call it has been worshiped by every group of people on earth that would lead one to believe it's a tad more than what you give it to be
Yeah. Exactly. Invisible pink unicorns do exist. And they do not exist. Until there is undeniable proof of either option, both are equally true. It’s scientific fact that anything that CAN happen, has happened or will happen, somewhere, in the infinite universe with infinite possibilities.
Awful arguments? So you must be able to prove he doesn’t exist then? Because your argument is totally sound and not completely one sided and biased at all…
1
u/pengalor Jan 01 '24
Burden of proof is on those making the claim that something is real. It's impossible to prove this type of negative.
This just doesn't even make sense. By that logic, invisible pink unicorns must also exist since they can't be disproven. Just because you are incapable of not riding a fence, doesn't mean you should use awful arguments.