I am the Alpha and Omega...

[sakabatou]

"There's no evidence that God doesn't exist."

This argument is often offered as a last line of defense in religious debates, and the person posing it might feel very clever coming up with it. However, the premise of the argument is both flawed and ridiculous. The failure to disprove something does not constitute proof of its existence.

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, especially in cases where the claims are unsupported or unfalsifiable. With no enduring evidence that a God exists, there is simply no reason to believe in a deity, even if it's not possible to irrefutably disprove his existence.

Many thought experiments have been created to show the absurdity of these claims, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in My Garage," Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of which are absurd claims without evidence and yet impossible to disprove. Familiarizing yourself with these thought experiments can give you a clear picture of exactly why the burden of proof should always be on the person making a claim.

[Arugula Latte]

1. Ahh, Christianitea ...

They are not chai about claiming their deitea exists. That's been going on for 'oolong.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Nicely done!

This is a keeper.

[RussBLib]

3. burden of proof on the person making a claim...

(just to play devil's advocate - that's a rather silly phrase, isn't it?)

....if an atheist makes a claim that there is no God, why would not the burden of proof be on them?

Seems a rather broad statement: on the person making a claim.

Shouldn't that be refined a bit? Like, the burden of proof should be on the person making a claim that something exists or is real?

[trotsky]

4. A lot comes down to definitions.

"There are no unicorns." - Well, if a unicorn is simply a horse-like animal with a single horn coming out of its head, I think it's certainly within the realm of possibility that perhaps there exists a creature fitting the description somewhere in the universe. If life is as common as we think, the odds are pretty good, I think, that evolution could have kicked something out like that. A claim that's impossible to prove since we can't scour every square inch and every second of spacetime itself to verify the non-existence of unicorns.

"There are no square circles." - Well that one's rather easy. We have precise definitions of squares and circles. No problem proving that claim.

So it comes down to the definition of "god" when one wants to say "There is no god." So far, every definition I've ever seen presented for one is internally or externally contradictory. The only other concepts of god seem to be ones purposely crafted to avoid giving any details at all about its nature. "God is love." Then why not just call it love? Etc.

[sakabatou]

8. Well, the one making the positive claim

[frogmarch]

5. wearable Russell's Teapot :-)

This and other “Teach the Controversy” T shirt designs can be found here:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

[AlbertCat]

7. I have this one ...only on an ecru shirt.

http://www.cafepress.com/dd/21459847



?color=Black&height=460&width=460&qv=90

[mr blur]

6. That's obviously been Photoshopped!

You can tell by the directions of the shadows. Also, Russell's head wasn't that big.