Snip
You've pretty much covered it all, but at the same time, there's much more to be covered.
Those who are told to prove the fact that a God, or Gods exist, should not have to. This is due to the fact that there isn't ANY proof supporting God's existance. There's a book, that religion's listen to because the book tells them too. It's a paradox, No, religion IS a paradox.
The proof that no religion possesses is the proof that anyone, trying to disprove religion, withholds. And no, the religious side cannot say the same thing torwards the anti-religious side, this is because the religious side is the the proving side, and the anti-religious side is the disproving side. This will explain it:
“The proof you don’t have, is the proof I have” this statement, does not in any formats contradict itself. There are never two proving sides two one concept, and if there are, one side cannot say this statement, due to it not making any sense what so ever, if there are two proving sides to one concept, they both must be proving the same thing, and that is why, using this statement wouldn’t offer any proof in any way. But in the case that there is a proving side, and a disproving side to that proving side, this statement is valid. Saying, “Where is your disproof to this not existing?” This is the exact same thing as saying, “Where is your proof to it not existing?” The first quote is the simplest format, thus it must be used within the argument. Same goes for this following, “Where is your proof of it existing?” And the second quote “Where is your disproof to it not existing” the first quote is it’s simplest format, and that is why it must be used. Since that has been cleared up, I can get to the general point of this document; without proof from the proving side, the disproving side may not offer any disproof, because there is no proof to base the disproof off of. The proving side does not need to base their proof off of disproof, because the proof needs to come from the source of which they’re trying to prove, not the disproving side.
This is only a SMALL step in disproving God's existance. But sadly, it will never happen. That is, unless, our creator (if any) shows itself, thus disproving a God. But that seems to be the only logical solution that we're able to comprehend. And a God can not be completely proven, until it shows itself. Old documents stating that god existed is not proof, a coinincidence, such as a body part being shaped into a cross, is not proof. Religion constantly tries to find the littles bit of evidence, just to get itself further, when all it seems to be doing, is showing the idiocy within religion.
What's happened in the past will never be proven, it is physically impossible. One can obtain all of the evidence they want, but they still can not prove that an event before the present time has ever existed.
