It is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism

The Fool: Hello everybody, Its you favourite Fool again, back to set the record straight. So first round for me will be to hit hard with somee rational arguments. Then again and again. 1. Parmenides’s argument of existence: P1 What is IS! P2 What is not does not existed C1 Therefore there is only existence. P2 More precisely; for what is not does not exist. First formulation: P1 IS P2 Not C1 Absurd (contradiction) Second formulation: What is not = What (is the case)(not the case)= contradiction. Third Formulation: For all that exist there is 1 of. E.g. One universe. One house or one mind. Even if there are three houses(3 x houses) there is one set of Three.(1(3H) Therefore what IS can be represented mathematically as 1. And not as 0 for absence. Thus “what is not”, can be represented as the following. For let x be=a particular case What is not= 1x(0x)=0 Thus my formulation of the Parmenides argument is a V type. Which mean all formulations must be refuted or else the conclusion holds. That is “there is only existence.” 2. The argument from Absolute universe: For I use the ‘word’(physical symbol) ‘ Absolute Universe’, to refer to The whole of all that exist. Thus if there are God, or and outside to that which is physical and whatever else it may be exist in the Absolute Universe. If is outside then it does not exist. No time, Is the non-existence of time. Just as no god is the non-existence of God. Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because there doesn't exist something to prove.. 3. The argument of oppression: God claim are more than that of a passive being but of also his of divine rules, commandments and explanations. It is irrational to claim that others are to be judged under such rule without first proving them true. You cannot morally expect someone to follow or act in a way to accord with rules that have not been demonstrated to then and the require then to prove it false first. Irrational. 4. Argument from Pride and honesty: If you are sure and proud of you argument. You would not even care about burden of proof but just proof it by sheer honesty and pride. If I think something true, I put my argument right out in the open to be tested right away. There shouldn’t be a question about it. Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because the theist should want to prove it if it is true. Not avoid it. 5. The argument from claims non-existence: For there are many who consider themselves strong atheist. IN that they claim that they believe in no God. But whether they claim it or not does not hide the truth that it is irrational, to proof wrong a supernatural claim since they are those beyond human understanding. And therefore are not falsifiable in the first place. Secondly it is equally irrational to belief in any type of non-existence for the very fact non-existence is nor there to belief in. And that in that sense they have false beliefs. That is just because they claim it doesn’t mean it’s a rational claim. And thus it’s still irrational to expect them to proof it because its an irrational claim in the first place. 6. Argument from order: For there must be a claim of existence in order for there to me a claim that something doesn’t exist. In other words there must be something at least in thought and or claim for someone to create a claim against it. Thus nobody would be claiming the non-existence of God if someone did not claim God in the first place. And therefore the original claim is always of the IS. And the counter claim can only be of is not. Thus Since the original thought or claim must be of IS. The claim of IS NOT, is always prior. Then the claim of there being a God is the initial claim of IS, and so by the order of claims they must provide the proof. Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because it only a reaction to the original claim. 7. Argument from implication: That is a “should” implies a “could. “ Since the debate of Burdon of proof is about whom “should” have the Burdon of proof, it can then only be on those who could give proof, but what does non-exist is not there to be proven, nor even to have knowledge of because it is not there. Therefore the Burdon of proof could never be on the non-existence of things. But only on the existence of something. Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because should implies a could. 8 . The Tea pot argument: (different version) If it irrational to make a claim which cannot be demonstrated and then expects others to have demonstrate it false first. Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. because claims of God are not falsifiable. Mind you 8 of the arguments are mutually exclusive. Which mean each one must be proven wrong, individually, to reject my resolution. That is, it is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism The Fool: Long live the Good!