Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

This is the base of what I use. Since I deal with audacious claims all the time, the burden lies on them.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.So, I'm correct. Context matters you know.You are incorrect. Context determines assymetry, not who has the burden of proof. You still have burden of proof for all your claims. Read the article and stop talking nonsense.I didn't say that only positive claims require proof,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.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.Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?Why?Demanding the proof to be scientific only is scientism. Not everything can be proven by the scientific method.You make assumptions that you aren't even aware of, is what I was saying.Everyone does it. What is your point? Are you claiming that you don't?Also, I don't need to assume that evolution is true, I can claim knowledge that it is.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?Which is why we experiment to test those premises.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.they didn't suddenly become false for what we used them for the past three centuries.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.In purely logical arguments the premises are never tested.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.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.