Yes.
It's a logical fallacy to prove a negative. For anything else to be absolutely disproved it's a fallacy; it has so far never been done.
To say that God might be disproved in future in particular; let alone soon - is like God is being treated as a special case, and God of course is not logically a special case.
No evidence of God like there's no evidence of many things. God is very improbable like many ridiculous ideas you can possibly come up with are...
God is not a special case whether he's a special case for something that DOESN'T need proof; or needs LESS proof, or different kinds of proof.....OR: if he's a special case because he is to be considered something that can be perhaps disproved in future; let alone the near future.
God is not a special case. So the negative proof fallacy still applies to him.
It's a fallacy to prove a negative. So it is included that it's a fallacy to prove God's non-existence too. Why wouldn't it be the same for God?
It's a logical fallacy to prove a negative. For anything else to be absolutely disproved it's a fallacy; it has so far never been done.
To say that God might be disproved in future in particular; let alone soon - is like God is being treated as a special case, and God of course is not logically a special case.
No evidence of God like there's no evidence of many things. God is very improbable like many ridiculous ideas you can possibly come up with are...
God is not a special case whether he's a special case for something that DOESN'T need proof; or needs LESS proof, or different kinds of proof.....OR: if he's a special case because he is to be considered something that can be perhaps disproved in future; let alone the near future.
God is not a special case. So the negative proof fallacy still applies to him.
It's a fallacy to prove a negative. So it is included that it's a fallacy to prove God's non-existence too. Why wouldn't it be the same for God?
