Who has the burden of proof?

[outhouse]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

Correct, and they have empty hands the hold together and pray with.

They have zero credible evidence in support.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

Yes and it has been justified with factual evidence.

Man has factually created deities for as long as there has been written history.


Only man has defined every go to date.

 

[Delta-9]

What sort of evidence should atheists present as evidence that "god doesn't exist"? It would take forever to point at everything and say "that isn't god, that either, and neither is that...."

Yet theists should have it easy, they say something exists so they can point it out, point out some existent thing that is god.

I guess I am differentiating between weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism shouldn't have the burden of proof, as most of you have said, I agree.

Strong atheism, at least to me, is making a positive claim about the universe and should have proportional evidence to back it up. The evidence required depends on which God you are talking about. For example to use the YEC God Christianity, basic science seems to refute such a God on the basis of the age of the Earth/universe, the global flood disproved, and so on, I think that would be sufficient to say that such a God cannot exist.

As for a general conception of God, I'm not sure what evidence/logic/reason is required to positively say that such a being does not exist.

 

[Sapiens]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

Burden is on the religionists since it is quite impossible to prove that something does not exist ... who knows, you may find it under the next rock you turn over? On the other hand proof of existence is straightforward.

I completely agree. There must be a burden of proof. For me the burden of proof is the Bible which proves the existence of our creator. The hundreds of prophecies that have come true, and the ones being fulfilled in our day are indisputable. Here's a sample:
● The Messiah, or Christ, would stem from the family line of King David.—Isaiah 9:7.

● Before his execution, the Messiah would be severely flogged.—Isaiah 50:6.
● The Messiah would be executed as a despised criminal, yet he would be buried with “the rich class.”—Isaiah 53:9.

In our day:
● Warfare, even on a global scale.—Matthew 24:7; Revelation 6:4.
● Food shortages.—Matthew 24:7.
● Great earthquakes.—Luke 21:11.
● Hatred and violence.—Matthew 24:10, 12.
● Greedy, self-centered people and money lovers.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.
● Worldwide preaching of the “good news of [God’s] kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.

Lets prove that Christ existed before we try to get into prophecies concerning him.

Any and all of you "in our day" could apply to any century since man came onto the scene.

On the surface it seems like a negative claim, which would mean the burden of proof is on the theistic side, however to positively say that "God does not exist" seems like a positive claim thus needing proof.

"God does not exist" remains a negative claim, that by it's nature is unprovable.

That's why Agnostics are the most open-minded in this philosophical debate.
because Agnostics don't have any burden of proof, given that they do not demand people to prove neither God's existence, nor God's nonexistence.
And they don't even expect that anyone proves them.

As for Atheists...yes...they have the burden of proof that God doesn't exist.
Because Theists don't claim that God is provable.
whereas Atheists claim that God's nonexistence is provable

I'm sorry Atheists, I always defend you. But I cannot defend you this time. You cannot expect us Theists to prove God's existence

Agnostics are just atheists with no guts.

Both have the burden for their claims.

No, you have to understand the difference between the provability of positive and negative claims.

The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim and thus requires the same justification as to claim the opposite.

While many atheists are correct to point out that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" line is not an argument, many nonetheless misunderstand burden of proof to mean that only theistic claims are subject to it. Which is not the case. Just because you're claiming something atheistic, doesn't mean you're exempt from the same logical demands you make on theists.

That God does not exist is a positive claim - no, it is not.

God does exist, that is a positive claim, it just requires one clear evidence to demonstrate it, evidence that I might point out has never, ever, been brought forward.

Who has the burden of proof?


It is Atheists weird and unnatural claim that God does not exist; so ethically, morally and spiritually the burden of proof is on them.

Regards

Horse pucky, you should know better. If nothing else, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I guess I am differentiating between weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism shouldn't have the burden of proof, as most of you have said, I agree.

Strong atheism, at least to me, is making a positive claim about the universe and should have proportional evidence to back it up. The evidence required depends on which God you are talking about. For example to use the YEC God Christianity, basic science seems to refute such a God on the basis of the age of the Earth/universe, the global flood disproved, and so on, I think that would be sufficient to say that such a God cannot exist.

As for a general conception of God, I'm not sure what evidence/logic/reason is required to positively say that such a being does not exist.

Again, you request flies in the face of logic in that you are asking for the impossible. It doesn't matter how many places I search and demonstrate that there is no god hiding there there are always more places to be searched where a god might be hiding. Think about it this way: You are an atheist when it comes to, say, Zeus. How would you go about proving that Zeus does not exist? Where would you look for him? When would you give up looking and declare him non-existent? Where you to want to prove his existence, all you'd have to do is pray to him and make the proper sacrifices that he'd show up.

 

[Glaurung]

That God does not exist is a positive claim - no, it is not.

You are making a definite claim about a state of affairs. (X is the case)

We can rewrite the claim as an affirmative if you like. There is no God. Now, what is the logical difference? A negation in an assertion doesn't change the fact you're still making an assertion. Functionally, I see no difference between them.

God does exist, that is a positive claim, it just requires one clear evidence to demonstrate it, evidence that I might point out has never, ever, been brought forward.

More accurately, evidence that adherers to your terms has never been put forward. People who have had direct experience of the supernatural would disagree.

 

[Mycroft]

In our day:
● Warfare, even on a global scale.—Matthew 24:7; Revelation 6:4.
● Food shortages.—Matthew 24:7.
● Great earthquakes.—Luke 21:11.
● Hatred and violence.—Matthew 24:10, 12.
● Greedy, self-centered people and money lovers.—2 Timothy 3:1-5.
● Worldwide preaching of the “good news of [God’s] kingdom.”—Matthew 24:14.

None of that is prophecy. It's predictable. Inevitable, even. Most of that stuff happened in biblical times themselves.

 

[Sunstone]

More accurately, evidence [of god's existence] that adherers to your terms has never been put forward. People who have had direct experience of the supernatural would disagree.

Intellectual honesty is important.

So far as I know, no such evidence has ever been put forth that is reliably intersubjectively verifiable. Jones is able to say he had a direct experience of a god, but Smith is unable to replicate his experience at will. This kind of evidence is less compelling than had Jones said he spotted a pack of wolves and Smith was able to later find the same pack.

Moreover, "direct experience" accounts, while to some extent remarkably consistent from one time and place to another, still show significant variation. For instance, some ascribe their experience to a god, some don't. Of those that ascribe their experience to a god, some ascribe it to this god, some to that god. Only by cherry picking and other dubious methods does one avoid significant inconsistencies between the testimonies.

 

[Sunstone]

Who has the burden of proof?


It is Atheists weird and unnatural claim that God does not exist; so ethically, morally and spiritually the burden of proof is on them.

Regards

Burden of proof is a concept from the field of logic, not -- as you suggest -- from the fields of ethics, morality, or spirituality. Ethics, morality, and spirituality are irrelevant to where the burden of proof lies.

 

[Altfish]

Proving a negative is difficult; as Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument showed...
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most atheists will change their mind about the existence of a god if any proof were provided. To date that has not happened; so they continue to reason that there is no god.

 

[chinu]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

The one who claims (Existence or Non-Existence) both has the burden of proof. But not the burden of claiming.

Why to claim ? That's the real question.
The one who really want to know something from you, will come to you without demanding any proofs because he/she already got the proof that you know

 

[Glaurung]

So far as I know, no such evidence has ever been put forth that is reliably intersubjectively verifiable.

And I don't disagree. I was a materialist myself at one point; I spouted all the same lines. But for my own reasons, I have become convinced there is more to this world than the material reality we perceive.

But that's for a different time and thread.

 

[Sunstone]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

I think this matter can be made clearer if we rephrase the statements, "God exists" and "God does not exist" to include their hidden assumptions. Thus the statements can be rephrased accordingly:

"It is demonstrable that god exists".

"It is demonstrable that no god exists".

The first case, "It is demonstrable that god exists", seems to me an obvious rephrasing of the assertion, for the assertion that something exists logically entails that that thing can be demonstrated to exist, in so far as one is making a factual claim and is not merely taking about one's beliefs.

But some of us might not see how the second case, "It is demonstrable that no god exists" is a logical rephrasing of the assertion, "No god exists", so I will explain.

First, assume someone were to assert that "It cannot be demonstrated that any god exists". Logically, that is not the same as asserting "It can be demonstrated that no god exists". Moreover, it is the position of agnosticism, rather than atheism. So, the atheist is not making the claim that "It cannot be demonstrated any god exists" --- or more precisely, he or she is not asserting that as a truth claim --- but to the extent they are asserting it at all, they are asserting it as a belief, rather than as a truth.

Put differently, "God exists" and "No god exists" are both claims about one's beliefs, rather than claims about what is or is not true, unless they are both understood to be claims about what is or is not demonstrably true.

Now let's return to those first two claims:

"It is demonstrable that god exists."

"It is demonstrable that no god exists."

As a rule of logic, the burden of proof always lies with the person making a positive or affirmative claim.

So which of those propositions makes a positive claim?

Both. Both are asserting that compelling evidence can be found for their positions. And to assert that there is compelling evidence for something (i.e. to assert that something is "demonstrable") is to make a positive claim.

 

[Sees]

Intellectual honesty is important.

So far as I know, no such evidence has ever been put forth that is reliably intersubjectively verifiable. Jones is able to say he had a direct experience of a god, but Smith is unable to replicate his experience at will. This kind of evidence is less compelling than had Jones said he spotted a pack of wolves and Smith was able to later find the same pack.

Moreover, "direct experience" accounts, while to some extent remarkably consistent from one time and place to another, still show significant variation. For instance, some ascribe their experience to a god, some don't. Of those that ascribe their experience to a god, some ascribe it to this god, some to that god. Only by cherry picking and other dubious methods does one avoid significant inconsistencies between the testimonies.

Polytheism + crazy or full of "it" people

My take on burden of proof - a theist/atheist who has a problem with atheism/theism, and wants to attempt to do something about it, has a burden.

In arguments between the two, only specific concepts of Gods will be dismissed, pushed, twisted, defended, etc. No side can have conclusive proof of what all does or does not exist within or beyond.

 

[cottage]

You are making a definite claim about a state of affairs. (X is the case)

We can rewrite the claim as an affirmative if you like. There is no God. Now, what is the logical difference? A negation in an assertion doesn't change the fact you're still making an assertion. Functionally, I see no difference between them.

Sapiens is correct in my view. God’s non-existence can never be proved and while “God does not exist” implies no contradiction, God’s existence remains possible none the less; therefore it is not a wholly positive assertion but more of a conclusion waiting to be addressed. But no such distinctions are given in “God exists”, which is an adamant assertion without caveats or qualification. “God does not exist” cannot logically be more than a response to the affirmative claim which bears the burden of demonstrating why “God exists” must be true.

More accurately, evidence that adherers to your terms has never been put forward. People who have had direct experience of the supernatural would disagree.

But there has never been any objective evidence for such a being.

 

[Sunstone]

Agnostics are just atheists with no guts.

I'm curious why you say that. So far as I know, agnosticism is a truth claim that one cannot know whether or not deity exists, rather than a mere claim about whether or not one believes in the existence of deity. If so, how does anyone "lack guts" if and when they are claiming they cannot know something.

Of course, I realize not everyone understands the difference between a truth claim and a statement of belief, and consequently, might think agnostics lack guts because they haven't the courage to take a stand and declare openly for atheism or theism. But that aside, there doesn't seem to be any apparent reason for your statement beyond, perhaps, mere prejudice.

 

[Sunstone]

And I don't disagree. I was a materialist myself at one point; I spouted all the same lines. But for my own reasons, I have become convinced there is more to this world than the material reality we perceive.

But that's for a different time and thread.

I'd be interested in such a thread.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheist don't have a belief in a god, so where is the need of a burden of proof, there is non because there is no proof of a god, simple.

Actually, not as simple as you might think. You seem to be committing the logical fallacy of equivocation on the meaning of the word "atheist" because you first define atheists as "not having a belief in god" and later define (by implication) atheists or atheism as involving "no proof of god". However, there is a key distinction to be made between a belief (I don't believe there is a god) and a truth claim (There is no proof of god). You appear to be equivocating on that distinction.

 

[Sunstone]

None of that is prophecy. It's predictable. Inevitable, even. Most of that stuff happened in biblical times themselves.

It also ignores the fact that one of the few New Testament prophecies that does not involve such obvious predictions as "there will wars" -- the prophecy of Jesus that he would return while some of those standing before him were still alive -- seems to have been a false prophecy.

 

[Sunstone]

In these discussions the 'burden of proof' term is meaningless as we all know no side has 'PROOF'.

All that matters is what we personally believe is most reasonable. So we are really discussing which position is 'most reasonable'.

Thank you for bringing to this discussion your failure to comprehend the meaning of "burden of proof".

 

[Sunstone]

as Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument showed...

It is arguable that Russell might have intentionally misplaced the burden of proof in his teapot argument in order to argue a point.

(That's a lot of arguing, by the way)

 

[Altfish]

It is arguable that Russell might have intentionally misplaced the burden of proof in his teapot argument in order to argue a point.

Tell me more