That is funny: "Actually its up to the [Bigfoot] in question to prove its existence, not the believer."

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Adams

@nogod4me bit of a difference between a god that created everything and cares about you or what you say/do, and Bigfoot.

@1of5 Why, because you believe Bigfoot exists?

So, you are telling me that we have to wait for every god or myth to prove it's existence FIRST, and we are not supposed to ask this god (because no one CAN ASK "him" because no one has any knowledge of "him" because "he" hasn't proven "his" existence yet) to prove "himself" because of a weird, unknown, "universal prescription"? Not only is that absolute nonsense, it is absurd. Someone needs their "universal prescription" changed.

Actually, there is no difference between an invented god that supposedly cares about you or what you say/do and a invented cryptid that meanders around the woods all day just for the hell of it looking for photo opportunities - except for the details of the myths.

Neither a non-existent god or a non-existent cryptid can "prove its existence" and neither can the believers in these myths.

What if I told you I had a magical leprechaun in the trunk of my car that blesses me and brings me luck. Now, prove that I don't. You may ask for my trunk key to use your 5 senses to prove I don't. However, my leprechaun is invisible and only makes himself known to those who believe in him through a magical book called the "Blarney Book" which is written in the hearts of all who believe in him. If I am unwilling to accept that the leprechaun is a delusion, all arguments solidify my delusion, since I believe that non-believers cannot contact my leprechaun except by believing in him and since they are arguing with me in the first place.

The point is, no one has to prove that this leprechaun doesn't exist, it would be my responsibility to prove the existence of this leprechaun because I made the assertion, and since the invented delusion itself cannot prove it's existence. To argue details of a fairy tale as if it were true is a fruitless errand or wild goose chase.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." - Douglas Adams

@nogod4me no, Bigfoot is a defined entity like your leupricaun (we can argue about lucks existance later) or the loch Ness monster is - a creature that inhabits this world and is a part of it - claim it's true and I'll ask you to prove it, because it's supposedly here.

God is a supernatural being that's actually poorly defined, nebulous, by definition unknowable, mysterious, and entirerly self contradictory. A person cannot actually prove something like this exists, its far beyond thier capabilities. So if such a thing exists it's up to them to show themselves to prove it exists.

@1of5. Yes, Bigfoot, leprechauns, Nessie, and god are defined entities in fiction, fables, myths and legends. But they are not define by reality and existence.

Do you believe any of these are real living entities?

As for your God being "poorly defined", you've certainly done a lot of defining. You've given it a gender, defined it as "supernatural, unknowable, mysterious, and entirerly self contradictory." An imaginary, non-existent, being does not have to be any of those things.

Your comments are bordering on imbecilic. Are you a believer?

@nogod4me dude, a human being cannot do supernatural things. Therefore a human cannot prove anything can do supernatural things, only entities that can do supernatural things can prove thier abilities, verifying the claims. It really is a simple concept, quite dissapointed you can't seem to grasp it.

But whatever.

@1of5 You have put the cart before the horse so badly, that you have run the horse over, backed over it, then ran over it again. You are simply saying that no one has to prove Superman can fly because when he flies he proves he can. You state: "a human being cannot do supernatural things. Therefore a human cannot prove anything can do supernatural things." If Superman existed, it would be very easy for you to prove he "can do supernatural things".

You are simply trying to conflate reality and ideology, which is ignorant.

As I said before, these beings are not defined by reality and existence.

All you are saying is that believers don't have to prove the assertions they make about an invented god because the lies will somehow prove themselves to be lies, if they are lies, and prove themselves to be real, if they are real. That is not a simple concept, that is just ignorance. The problem is that there are gullible, uneducated, people who will believe these lies right at this moment, causing major problems, and therefore, it forces the person making the assertions to prove the assertions they make.

For example: “You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” - L. Ron Hubbard (Founder of the Church of Scientology) There are reasons people demand that believers prove their assertions, when someone is lying to you, we have the right to demand they prove it. The damage religion has caused is extremely evident and believers are still waiting for their particular god to prove themselves.

We already know that faith and prayer doesn't work, if faith and prayers actually worked, believers would be famous. That doesn't stop the idiots from still believing, praying, and pushing their nonsense.

Faith fosters ignorance, it forces believers to deny realities and established science in order to sustain their faith, but of necessity, it also forces them to prove their assertions when they make these claims to everyone else.

You are simply trying to give excuses for believers not to prove the assertions they make, which is just lame.

And, it is quite disappointing that you cannot admit that you are wrong. But, whatever.

@1of5 To put it concisely,, god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

@nogod4me way to much verbiage for my interest level, TL;DR

@1of5 You didn't seem to understand so I tried to lay it out for you.

To put it concisely, god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.

I have simply proven this statement false: "Actually, its up to the god in question to prove its existence, not the believer."

No question, just clarifying.