What is God?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

(What i understood from robvalue's website)
[start]
If someone says that the number of sweets in a bag is an even number then that person is making a claim.
When another person rejects that claim it doesn't necessarily mean that he is implying that the number of sweets in the bad is an odd number.It only implies that this person is rejecting the claim made by the first person,i.e,the number of sweets in a bag is an even number.
[end]
If the second person does in fact imply that the no. of sweets in the bag is odd,then that person is also making a claim.

Similarly,
When a person rejects the claims made by a theist(i.e,belief in a god) it doesn't necessarily mean that the person rejecting the claim is disbelieving in the claim.It only means that the person rejecting the claim is simply rejecting the claim.

I'm too lazy to look for it,but many a people in this forum has told me that atheists are rejecting the claims made by theists,that they are not claiming anything.
And then others have told me that Atheists are people that doesn't believe in a God.

Correct me if i'm wrong.But disbelieving a claim is not the same as rejecting a claim?
Because disbelieving a claim would imply that the person disbelieving believes in whatever is the opposite of the claim(from rob's analogy,believing that the no. of sweets is an odd number) but rejecting the claim doesn't imply anything other than rejecting the claim.

In short,some atheists think that Atheism is rejecting the claims proposed by Theism while some others think that Atheism is a disbelief in God.

Guys,please please please please please don't eat me for saying this.I'm sorry if my stupidity annoys you.

What's missing from your understanding is the word "positive."

The person making a positive claim is the one who has the burden of proof; in this case, it would be the person claiming that god does exist. "God does NOT exist" is a negative claim or not a claim at all, depending on how you want to define it, but it definitely isn't a positive claim any way you slice it. Positive claims are the ones that have to be proven with evidence because, in general, they're non-falsifiable. Negative claims (pertaining to existence, anyway) are easily falsifiable because all it takes is one shred of observable evidence that something exists to establish that it does.

Basically, the reason the burden of proof is on the positive claim is that the positive claim (god exists) is non-falsifiable. The negative claim (god does not exist), is falsifiable. Because of this, the negative claim is the default position until it is falsified with evidence. It's simply a matter of what it's logically possible to prove.

"God exists" can be proven but not disproven, and "God does not exist" cannot be proven, but it can be disproven. As such, it is never up to the atheist to prove their claim because that's impossible, and it is never right for the theist to demand their claim be disproven because that's also impossible.

Is it really true that one cannot make negative claims?I didn't know that up until now,pretty cool.

Anyway,one thing i have to say is that any claim can be a positive claim as long as the negative of the negative of the positive is a positive.
I wonder how a claim is classified as a positive or negative claim?

I guess the one way to classify would be to observe whether a negative have another negative,if it doesn't then it is a negative.But if a negative has a negative,then the negative of the negative can be considered as a negative and the original negative as a positive?

(A!)! = A.
((A!)!)! = A!.
(((A!)!)!)! = (A!)!.

This can be easily proven by using a truth table..
Yeah,that's about the only problem i found