(July 7, 2013 at 8:28 am)Tonus Wrote: Without context, I would say that your statement is correct.
But the demand (prove that god does not exist) is not a random claim and the motive can be guessed at. In my experience, when I see that question it is the result of an inability to present evidence of god that can stand up to basic scrutiny. I find that quite a bit of the discussion here takes the form of 'instead of proving god exists, let's discuss why he can't NOT exist.' So I see the demand in that context.
And so my response would be what I stated earlier: acceptance of the claim that I cannot prove god does not exist. This would allow the person making the challenge to proceed to whatever his next point is, assuming he has one aside from what amounts to an admission of defeat. At that point we may be able to have a potentially constructive discussion. If he didn't have any other point, then I didn't waste time establishing a position that he wasn't interested in considering.
The callousness I'm talking about is considering something as right or wrong without context. In most contexts, doing so is wrong.
As I later indicate, this question can be asked in many contexts - one would be, as you state, as a defense for the inability to prove god. Another would be a genuine epistemological inquiry.
Your acceptance of the negative - or rather, refusal to consider it a valid point - would be applicable in the former context, not the latter. As a child, when I asked someone "why X doesn't exist?", I expected reasoned arguments as to why the concept of X was fallacious, unrealistic, illogical or self-contradictory - not a response of "go away, kid. You can't prove a negative".
