Now that's a tortured bit of wordplay I've never seen before. "There is no X" is a positive claim?-So if I claim* that there is no Santa Claus, you would argue that the burden of proof is on me?-*even this is badly twisted. It is redundant to "claim" that there is no Santa Claus (or god.) Non-existence is the null hypothesis. If there's no evidence of a thing then it doesn't even enter into the picture until someone claims that it DOES exist.