True, someone who says God does not exist is making a claim that assumes the burden of proof. If someone asks how the claimant knows there is no God, the claimant has the burden to justify the position.
It's probably worth pointing out that something strange is going on with this particular claim, because the argumentation is so odd.
Gnostic Atheist: 'There is no God.' Not GA: 'How do you know?' GA: 'God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent and omnipotence contradicts both itself and omniscience'. Not GA: 'I define 'God', 'omniscience', and/or 'omnipotence' differently.'
Gnostic Theist: 'God exists.' Not GT: 'How do you know?' GT: 'One of hundreds of arguments.' Not GT: 'This is the flaw in your argument.' GT: 'Different argument or different definition of God or repeats same argument as though no objection was raised.'
It's probably worth pointing out that something strange is going on with this particular claim, because the argumentation is so odd.
Gnostic Atheist: 'There is no God.' Not GA: 'How do you know?' GA: 'God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent and omnipotence contradicts both itself and omniscience'. Not GA: 'I define 'God', 'omniscience', and/or 'omnipotence' differently.'
Gnostic Theist: 'God exists.' Not GT: 'How do you know?' GT: 'One of hundreds of arguments.' Not GT: 'This is the flaw in your argument.' GT: 'Different argument or different definition of God or repeats same argument as though no objection was raised.'
