Verified answer

Nonreligious people aren't "admitting" anything when they say you can't prove a negative. They're pointing out the flaw with requiring proof of a negative, particularly regarding something that's supposedly far beyond our ability to explore it such as a supernatural deity. If that deity is supernatural, ie. beyond nature, it's impossible for humans to explore the claim of that deity's existence because humans are bound within the natural world and universe, and within the 3 physical dimensions plus time that we experience. Many times I've heard religious people claim their god exists outside the natural world, outside of time and space. The burden of proof is on them to show that their god actually exists; the burden of proof is not on those who disbelieve such claims. For example, let's say I claim there's a McDonald's on one of the moons orbiting a planet around one of the stars in the Big Dipper. You respond by saying that's impossible. It would be a major fallacy for me to come back with, "You can't prove there ISN'T a McDonald's on that moon!" Such a response would in no way support my initial claim or refute your response, and the burden of proof would be on me to show such evidence before anybody should be expected to believe it.

The claim in my example is absolutely absurd, and so is the claim that a god exists. You can believe whatever you want, but if you expect others to believe what you say, it's your responsibility to show evidence that clearly and convincingly supports your claim.

No.

Besides: you CAN prove a negative.

Indeed: the entire concept of "a negative" is logically irrelevant to the matter since almost any so-called "negative" can be reworded as a so-called "positive".

That is: being stated as "a negative" has no bearing on whether or not a statement can be proved or disproved.

If it is, they have set there threshold for victory pretty low.

Why so silly when you can and do prove the negative!

The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

An ancient set of lead tablets found in Jordan in 2008 showing the earliest portrait of Jesus Christ have proved to be 2,000 years old and say that Jesus and the disciples tried to recreate a religion from the time of King David!

Research shows education reduces religious belief but each year of education more than the basic reduces it by 10%!

No. Negatives are proven all the time.

Russel was wrong. Einstein predicted black holes before one was discovered. Scientists now predict there is dark energy offsetting gravity, but we can't detect it. Same with God. Edison proved 1,000 things didn't work before he invented the light bulb.

One needs not prove a negative for it is what it is but if one is selling something and the service it is professed to provide then it is "they" who are tasked with proof, that is unless they know what a belief actually is.

Interplanetary teapots don't exist.

Why can't I prove there are no roaches in my cereal?

Now Africans feel I miss out.

Why use a concept that is irrelevant in the domain of religion, belief?

But there's statistics of things, changes, unusual events and more.

You can only prove math, a closed system.. Even then, I heard numbers aren't exact.

So scrap proof altogether.

No. You have it backwards. The non religious people have been saying for centuries you cannot prove there is no god. A negative cannot be proven. Saying something exists, like a god for example is a positive and that is what needs proof.

I think some believer lost a point of an argument and is trying to turn to turn around the issue.