(Continuation from yesterday)

However, the believer has no responsibility to explain it. It is "burden of proof".

A burden of proof is a basic principle that "the proof will be obliged to explain to the profitable party."

Thinking of it, it is natural that "a peron who break a sweat, will get profit"

However, there are surprisingly many people who do not know this principle.

-----

The believer only needs to "believe" God (the existence and function), not the burden of proof.

Conversely, non-believers who want to deny the existence of God or the function of God, will be obliged to prove their denial. That is so-called "demon proof".

This is why this barren debate has not ended since history.

The non-believers (like me) can say, that "assuming that God does not exist, I can explain the above-mentioned unreasonableness and absurdity neatly".

But this is just a hypothesis.

This level of hypothesis is far from being a "proof of the absence of God".

-----

Let me change a subject.

When I was a student, I was consulted by a female friend.

"A friend (female) is clearly dating a "bad man", and I am telling her to "stop from dating", but she never hear me"

"She said "you misunderstand him" and she have never heard anyone"

"What should I do?"

In response to this consultation, I answered as follows.

"I am sorry but I think that you can't do anything. "Faith" is not logical"

-----

I can't do "proof of the absence of God".

However, I am proud that the above story is a good explanation of the "essence of faith".