Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You can keep restating it all the time, it won't change a thing. You still have the burden of proof if you make the opposite claim. I don't care if they have a heavy burden than you do. You still have it. You're making negative claims about the existence of God. You still have burden of proof. The burden does not lie on them. It lies on both sides. Read the article.Saying "no" is already justified by "there is no evidence that survives scrutiny which supports god." The second claim is justified by the expert sceptics who verify audacious claims, and by looking at testimony and finding parsimonious explanations that fit.If I said "I can prove beyond all doubt that god doesn't exist" the burden of proof would be great for me, because I'm aiming to contradict an unfalsifiable claim.You're attempting to argue semantics to defend your position now. This is a very weak argument as the text disagrees with you. It doesn't matter what you meant to write. What matters is what you did write. If you didn't mean it, go back and remove the word 'positive' from your text. If what you say is true, it won't detract from your argument. If you insist on keeping it, what you meant is clear.I said that positive claims require evidence, they have the burden of proof. Quit inserting words into what I said in an attempt to bolster yourself.This is why religious people and creationists can't be taken seriously, you don't know when to concede, you treat every argument like it's the most important point that cannot fold.When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claimThat's what I said. Don't insert words.It doesn't matter really. The default position will never be 'negative,' but neutral. Discuss semantics all the way into tomorrow if you will. You're still wrong.This is a semantic argument. Practically speaking, neutral and negative are the same here, they mean "unconvinced." You are concerned with "neutral" because it sounds softer to you than "no" or "negative" and you're making the positive audacious claim. Also, it lets you attack atheism as a claim that needs justification when it doesn't. We don't need to support our claim that unicorns don't exist, until evidence is found that they do.Demanding the proof to be scientific only is scientism. Not everything can be proven by the scientific method.Inserting words again. It's impossible to argue with someone who cannot read what you say and inserts connotations at every opportunity.Oh, really? And based on what such knowledge is? More unproven premises, like Abiogenesis and the Tree of Life? You do realize that, if Abiogenesis is proven to be false, Evolutions fall together with it, don't you?If big bang theory is proven false, then gravity, optics, biology, chemistry, medicine, etc. fall together with it!No, you don't. You experiment on your hypothesis. The premises are something you take for granted. That's why the prefix 'pre (before)' exists in the word premise. It means a proposition from which another follows. If you had to test your premises, you would have to test its own premises, and so forth, all the way back to the most basic concepts possible. That's why you don't test premises. You build upon them.A hypothesis can be called the premises that a theory rests upon.Actually, they are incorrect, but their result is good enough so they can be used in some situations. We have good ways to measure it, to measure its error, and to know in which situation the error generated by it will not be meaningful.You mean to say imprecise and inaccurate if used at certain magnitudes, not incorrect, which is a binary descriptor.Yes, they are. Logically, and sometimes empyrically and scientifically. To borrow an expression you like to use, logical conclusions do not arise ex nihilo. They follow from something else. I already told you to be wary of universal premises. Words like always and never are very difficult to be used in an argument, and you keep throwing them around.Back in the old days before science, philosophers and theologians thought that they could justify their theology using reason alone. It gave them wrong conclusions, like the cosmological argument, and argument from design. When we tested our premises, later becoming hypotheses, we were able to expand our knowledge by discarding arguments that sounded good but were wrong.Just because you like making bare assertions on your 'reasonings', and never backs up your premises with any evidence or reasoning, does not mean that everyone else does the same.Using theory as support isn't a bare assertion.