Terry asked:

In reviewing your past questions and answers Miguel asked a question, "Can you prove that God
exists or can't we prove it?" The answer stated that "it is harder to prove that God doesn't exist".

A later question from another person asked "I've been reading a lot about the theory of determinism
and so far, no one has given me any good explanation on how it may not be true. Can you?" The
answer was "Since you think this is true, what is your argument for it? After all, isn't it up to the
determinist who is the one asserting determinism to argue for his view? After all, if you are the one
who says determinism is true, isn't it up to you to argue for it?"

Those two questions where answered in contradicting ideals.

Isn't up to the person who believes in God to argue for it, just like it is up to the person who believes
in determinism to argue for it?

===========

I was the one who pointed out that it was the person who asserts (in this case, determinism) who has
the burden of proof, not the person who does not believe determinism is true. And I certainly do agree
with you that the same issue is true about the existence of God.

I want to add this, though. There is a big difference between not being able to prove God exists, and
proving that God does not exist (which you appear to suggest are the same in your question) The
person who says, "It is up to you, who is making the claim, to show that God exists (or that
Determinism is true)" is, himself, making no claim, so he himself has nothing to prove. But, on the
other hand, the person who says, "God does not exist" (or Determinism is not true)" ismaking a
claim, and is under the obligation to support that claim. As is said, the absence of evidence is not at
all the same as the evidence of absence.

Ken Stern