Every so often, a believer will set a trap disguised as a challenge: “Prove God does not exist.” It sounds like a debate, but it is really a rigged game. The demand is not only absurd, it is logically incoherent.
We do not live our lives by trying to disprove unprovable claims. Nobody is expected to prove that unicorns do not exist, that invisible dragons do not live in garages, or that a teapot is not orbiting between Earth and Mars. The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. If you assert that something exists, you must provide evidence.
This matters because theists often shift responsibility onto atheists, asking them to knock down the unfalsifiable. It is not an honest move. A claim that cannot be tested or measured is a claim that cannot be meaningfully believed. Saying “prove God does not exist” is like asking someone to prove there are no square circles. The concept collapses under its own contradictions.
The truth is simple: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is never grounds for belief either. If there is no evidence for something, the rational position is to withhold belief until evidence is presented. That is the standard we apply everywhere else in life. Why should God get a free pass?
The challenge to “disprove God” is not an argument. It is an attempt to avoid the only real question: what evidence supports belief? Until that question is answered, the debate is not about atheism at all. It is about the emptiness of the claim itself.