From your link.
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.
You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.
As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.
You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.
If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.
So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?
You're claiming that an unsubstantiated assertion that God exists, is PROOF? That you need not furnish any evidence to support that claim to have satisfied the burden of proof requirement?
A claim without supporting evidence does not need to be disproven because it has proven nothing.
On topic:
If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.
Well again, no matter how many times evidence is offered, nevertheless comes the assertion that no such evidence has been advanced...
You exist... you didn't create yourself, thus it follows that you owe your existence to something other than you. You'll claim that such is a function of a chemical/biological system, which is fully understood by science and that such an understanding of those processes precludes any other potential for a further understanding...; and this despite the continual expansion of the human understanding of such.
Sadly, the mere understanding of the process does not exclude that which one does not understand, recognize or that one can observe; the origins of such processes, you want to lay at the foot of happenstance... you make such claim based upon absolutely nothing beyond faith; yet you advance it as the purest essence of truth; and spare me the distraction that you've made no such claims or empty challenges to prove such; as the anti-theist reasoning is about as open a book as one will ever come upon; so we won't be going down that fallacious road.
Now you're entitled to your reasoning; but you are not entitled to dismiss another's reasoning through the pretense that such has not been sustained by evidence; then further demanding that the evidence can only be valid when it convinces you; as to establish such a rule, discredits your own reasoning.
Human life is a function of an endowment by Nature's God; a gift...
Now Nature's God is an unknown value in this equation; but like any theory... such must begin somewhere... and it is at that point that our theory begins.
For instance, most of physics begins at 'the Big Bang'... there is much evidence to support that theory, but nearly all of it is disputed by someone, most of whom have excellent arguments which comes with their respective articles of evidence. Can't be proven conclusively... as there is no means to do so. You may agree with the evidence whcih supports the notion in general; you may be sufficiently heeled in the science to agree with specific, detailed theories... or you may flat out disagree with all of it.
The fact is that such is the accepted starting point; the theory serves reason and is sutained by the evidence of those who have considered it.
Religion is no different. Adherents to such do not come to such a belief in a vaccum; they are taught of the concept, they study the documents, consider the evidence and inevitably come to their conclusions based upon the same processes.
THE EVIDENCE: human life exist; humanity didn't create itself; thus something else did and it is THAT som€ething else; which is God.
That's sufficient evidence to stand as proof for me...
You may disagree... but you can no longer claim that in this thread, that evidence for the existence of God, has not been provided.
So step off ...
