"The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy” - David Brooks
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence."
With thanks to Sinbad
It would seem some "atheist" are of the same belief/faith as the religious when it comes to a god. I am flabbergasted as to why.
There is no equal burden of proof. To even suggest it is infantile. The religious are inclined to mutate a debate from one demanding proof (proposing a “truth”) to one demanding an equal burden from the one not being convinced of the proof given.
They enact a sort of diversion tactic trying to prove a hypothesis by demanding the other prove a negative. And now some atheist too it would seem.(unbelievable!)
This BS tactic is the result of their need to show that all forms of belief, even unbelief, require faith. In this way they believe they accomplish two things avoiding the burden of presenting arguments for their proposition, and then challenging the other to present an argument against their proposition. By this they are attempting to show that all positions are founded on faith.
This strategy completely avoids the fact that there are no absolutes but only superior and inferior positions.
Here a religious/some atheists mind shows the quality of its reasoning by not being able to perceive a gradation of “truth” but only absolutes (God Itself is an absolute notion) and by perceiving the universe as a “this” or “that” construct, a black or white, a good or evil reality with no colouration or shading of any kind in between.
There’s a saying that goes like this:
“Don’t argue with a fool because he’ll pull you down to his level and then beat you with his experience there.”
Unfortunately, for them, the burden of proof rests squarely upon their shoulders and no amount of verbal acrobatics can unburden them of it.
The one claiming a “truth”, in this case an absolute “truth” at that, is the one that must offer arguments and evidence, equal to the proposition offered, and in support of this “truth” and not the one denying or resisting the arguments themselves.
Here I must mention that there are atheists that hold on to their own opinions in absolute dogmatic ways (as we have noticed)and are just as guilty of absolutism as any religious fanatic is. The only honest atheistic position is that of one not believing in things it is unconvinced of or hasn't witnessed adequate proof of.
If I have doubt, I have reason to remain sceptical.
Given this logic everything that can be imagined does exist if it cant be shown to not exist.
I cant prove that Easter bunny does not exist, therefore he does.
I cant prove that Ireland is not populated by leprechauns so therefore it must be.
If we established this form of reasoning in everyday life we would not need to have money only ask that the other prove that we do not. If he is unable to meet that burden, then we can both assume that I do have money.
Here reality isn’t constructed based on ongoing investigation but it pre-exists completed and indisputable and all that remains is for it to be proven or dis-proven.
If it cant be proven then the burden is diverted upon the opposition who must disprove it or else risk constituting it as real if they cant.
This is why such minds cant be rehabilitated or reasoned with and why, in numbers and given enough political clout, they become very dangerous?