it is to the claimer (there is a God) to prove what he/she claims.....if there is no proof then there is no reason to put value to the claim.....
213568
I have to say, drawing a comparison between pregnancy and the existence of God is ridiculous.  there is plenty of proof available that someone is pregnant.  Medical SCIENCE and religious BELIEF are not analogous.  \n\nYour pregnancy test was based on a chemical reaction.  Unless you'd like to claim an immaculate conception, I'd recomend you stop using it as proof of God.
269307
The statement (which you refer to as a claim) is flawed for the reasons you gave. Your rebuttal was excellently worded, and was logical. But, there is a major flaw with your rebuttal : the people who make the claim are not logical people. The only people who can understand your rebuttal are logical. You will spend your energy preaching to the choir, because the people who make the original claim will not stay and listen to you. It was really nice to read a well-stated post.
132456
First of all: I consider it really important to base your faith upon something that is reasonable, because if you do not do so, when faith is replaced by doubt, it would be really difficult to sustain. according to this, I consider that God is evident because: if we, the world we live in, and the whole universe surrounding us exist, then we could say that "Emptiness" (understand this as the lack of everything  doesn't exist), therefore Everything (understand this as the total lack of Emptiness) exists, therefore God (or something that could be considered to be infinite and eternal exists.=)
89722
Dear sweet one, \n\n  There is no proof.  If there were proof, then the global population would be in perfect agreement.  There is faith, and there are theories.  And nothing more.
582086
You do not have an understanding of the basic belief in a monotheistic G-d.  If something is infinite then it has no needs.  If there are no needs there is no use for slaves or servants.
452459
I disbelieve on the grounds of lack of evidence so short of proof being forthcoming I couldn't say I believed God existed. Convictions or subjective opinions don't come into it-it's purely down to a lack of valid evidence.
495510
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  \n\nHowever, it is the logical (or I should say illogical) fallacy "argument from ignorance" that because there is no evidence that God exists, that is evidence that God does not exist.   \n\nIt is also logical fallacy of "negative proof," that God must exist because there is no proof that God does not exist.  Why do you think God exists.  Why do you think God doesn't exist?    \n\n"The burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea."  The challenger must only raise an issue of doubt, whereas the proposer must carry the burden of persuasion.  \n\nWhat can be more "honest," "practical," "intelligent," than LOGIC?\n\nAnother point, it is beliefs we are talking about, which are devloped best from the weight of the evidence in a world that seldom presents absolute proof.  Provocative question!  Thanks for keeping me up all night with this non-sense!
655020
The default position for all claims is "false", for the simple reason that there are an infinite number of potential false claims, but only a finite number of potential true claims.  For trivial claims, trivial evidence is sufficient.  But for outrageous claims, outrageous evidence is required to overcome the appropriate skepticism.\n\nUntil gods are proven to exist, it is assumed they don't.  \n\nAre you also an aleprechaunist, or are you willing to admit the concept of leprechauns is ridiculous and reject it outright unless sufficient evidence is found?\n\nDepending on the definition of god you choose, there may be proof of the nonexistence of that deity, but in general, it's not practical to prove a negative.\n\nIf there were any gods, and they cared whether or not you believed in them, don't you think they'd make it obvious instead of depending on ancient rumors?
220384
Provide evidence of a god first.
340227
Proof is hard. Is there evidence?\nIs it easier to prove presence or absence?\n\nDo athiest have "faith" in a "Void"?
73623
This is more of a cynical than logical answer.  It is important if proving the invalidity of (whatever) benefits your own (whatever).
187380
Please provide your proof that there is a God.\nPlease provide proof in the form of documented fact. And the Bible doesn't count, it has been misinterpreted so often, that it is a joke. If you want to use it as documented "fact", provide documentation that it is actually the word of "god"
248744
Back to the "leap of faith." \n\nPeople like you and I cannot accept that simply because the bible says something, that it must be true. However, there are billions of people who think otherwise.\n\nWe cannot accept this argument because it cannot be tested. They feel that they can accept it because reason has no place in matters of faith.\n\nThis is pretty much the whole issue in a nutshell.
240471
cause the existence of god is questioning..
95063
It's an opinion of people. really you can't prove that there is only one god nor can you disprove.
428187
Suing God for striking your boat with lightning, is like trying to sue your Dad because he took away the car keys. That, and the clergy have no say in God's plans and they themselves barely understand God, and know him mostly as a mystery. \n\nAlso, what the lord giveth he can taketh away. Since this guy wants to sue God, he believes their is a God, and that he was created by God, however you want to see God, since he gave you life to enjoy, it doesn't make sense to go and complain about smaller issue's. It your life is a living hell then I can see why one would question why God even put him or her to life in the first place. \n\nIf God is to blame for these things or not, is paradoxical, because without him, we wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't care about a good life or a bad one. However, I suppose you can sue God, but if it is not hypocritical, then not only will to the trial fail to materialize because the lack of a true defendant, but also in that any Church cannot be held responsible for nature, not can their attempt to explain the mystery of God be held against them.
207809
Mabey they are searching for something. You forget, all an atheist needs is one scrap of REAL PROOF to believe in something. As opposed to a religious person who can see all the proof in the world, yet still turn a blind eye to it because they would rather have 2+2=5 rather then 4.