I’m not religious but there’s a significant difference here.

Burden of proof is on the person making the assertion in both cases, but we can’t prove without a doubt that god doesn’t exist even if we don’t feel there’s enough evidence to suggest he is. There is, however, concrete evidence the earth isn’t flat, so no matter who the burden is on it’s demonstrably false.

Put another way: You can concretely observe without a doubt that not only is the earth not flat, but also that it can’t be flat. We can’t confidently say god can’t exist.

I don't think you've thought through what you're trying to assert. A god could make you believe anything they wanted to about the earth. So if you cannot disprove a god, then you cannot disprove the theory that the earth is flat.

I’m not sure you thought this through. Why would G-d want to or care to make one have thoughts.

why are you censoring the word 'God'?

It's common in many religious communities to not write the name of God out. I think it likely comes from the Jewish tradition.

The idea of not naming G-d is based on the concept of being human comprehension and not within realm of human language. G-d can name things in our world but it’s a one way street. For humans it’s presumptions to assign a name to G-d. it implies an understanding that can’t exist.

You can still believe that the scientific method works; and might leads you to 2 conclusions:

(a) "I can prove earth is not flat" (using this methodology) (b) I cannot prove there is no God, though I may believe the prevalence of evidence does not support the hypothesis, there's no scientific test that I can design.

The scientific method is partly inspired by belief in a God who is good (so no deceit) and created a universe that runs on laws. If you have particular beliefs about God, you can build a lot on that (as Descartes did).

Just because you think I am wrong does not mean I have failed to think through the various components/implications of my statement.

I can disprove that the Earth is flat with the incredibly varied, concrete, observable evidence that it is not. It comes in many forms and is undeniable, hence the lengths flat earthers have to go to to “prove” the evidence is all just a collection of lies that serve some nebulous, nefarious purpose (they don’t even agree on what that is) that serves some faceless evil group they prop up (usually “the deep state” or Jewish people). On the other hand, I do not have concrete, observable evidence that God does not exist. That’s the thrust of my point.

GP's argument is essentially this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

Perhaps you might think this is bullshit because *obviously* this world is real and not an illusion and there is *obviously* no evil demon to deceive us into thinking the Earth is spherical instead of flat.

And yes this is what philosophers do. Nobody here is arguing that such demon exists and is actually deceiving us, but since you've accepted you can't prove god doesn't exist (maybe mis-step for you since you're probably not the philosopher type), well, can you prove such demon doesn't exist? Seems to me the same thing.

This is an incredibly patronizing and just generally annoying comment.

Sounds like a you problem. I didn’t find it to be either.

Don't know why you're downvoted so much, but your observation is spot on.

This is essentially Descartes evil demon issue. If you can't disprove that an evil demon (with god-level powers) is deceiving you at everything you perceive, then how are you going to be sure about anything? (including that the Earth is not flat?)

It has always been a difficult philosophical issue about how much we can trust reality itself.

That’s an interesting big picture philosophical question with big picture implications, but it’s not really what we are talking about here. We are confirming the things we can about our shared reality, not questioning its very nature.

and most people who believe in God will cite some evidence - religious experiences, or philosophical proofs or whatever. Whether you accept that evidence is sufficient or not, it is in an entirely different class.

Sure but I’m just not even opening that can of worms. I’m just focusing on the very clear cut difference here

That is a strawman. Who believes in an old man on a cloud judging everyone? Far fewer people believe anything like that than believe. Even online I have never come across anyone whose beliefs could be reasonably characterised that way.