RicOlie_2 said:

dclarkg said:

Possessed said:

At the end of the day you really can't prove he exists. You can't prove he doesn't exist either though. Arguing about it will always be fruitless because there is no definitive argument for either side.

How I'm going to prove the NOT existence of something? The person who makes a claim has to provide the evidence to support the claim. You can't disprove the unicorns, magic pixies or elfs neither so therefore they exist?

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Atheists are making the claim, since they're in the minority. Most people believe a god exists. Therefore, the burden of the proof is on the non-believers to show that he does not. If someone thinks a certain god is the right one, the burden of proof is on that person, since their is no majority agreement on any specific god.

It's like if I decided to become an a-atomist, because I believed atoms weren't real. In that case, the burden of proof would be on me, because it's generally accepted that they are. I can't just say "hey, I don't find the reasons for their existence convincing, there just isn't any evidence for them," and expect people to think it a valid position to hold (I'm not saying that atheism isn't, however).

If this may be the case, might a potential future in which God might be disbelieved by the majority then shift the burden of His proving back to the theist?

At what % of belief/disbelief might this burden change?