Is God Altruistic? Is God Happy?

[Silver]

The burden of proof resides with the one making the positive claim of something existing when there is no evidence of its existence.

That is literally how burden of proof works in relation to religious subjects.

If I was to state that leprechauns do not exist, it would be absurd to claim that the burden of proof is to prove something doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't exist and the burden only resides on the one making the claim of existence.

Lol, that's not "literally" how the burden of proof works. 

" whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim."

"Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_...hilosophy)

You're the one making the claim that God isn't real. And you resorting to dishonesty in suggesting that you have no obligation or burden of proof to support this claim. That you can make it, and take refuge in suggesting you have no burden of proof. How much more dishonest could you get?

The only in which you wouldn't have a burden of proof, is by not making such a claim at all.

Fine, have it your way:

Me: god isn't real.
You: prove it.
Me: there's zero evidence for god's existence.
/End