(February 13, 2014 at 7:27 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: You can't have a burden of proof if something by the definition of what it is can't ever be proved. If God isn't physical then it isn't something you can see, there's nothing physically there to study or demonstrate. The burden of proof will only apply in matters of science not faith.
No, it just means that if you play definitional word games and move your god-concept out of the realm of unfalsifiability, we will never have any reason to believe in it because it simply will never meet it's burden of proof.
The burden is still there, regardless of whatever bullshit word games and moving of the goal post you try. You make a claim, you have the burden; and it's not the skeptic's obligation to disprove your empty assertions. If you cannot support your claim with anything more than blind empty faith, nobody has any reason to accept your claim; and the rational thing to do is reject it.
Welcome to Introductory Logic and Reason 101. Seriously, go back and get yourself a real education, because this level of willful ignorance is frankly embarrassing.