Who has the burden of proof?

[Delta-9]

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?

 

[psychoslice]

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.

 

[Susanpalli,JW]

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 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.

 

[Sir Doom]

If you intend to convince anyone of anything, you should be prepared to meet their standards for that. It makes no difference what it is you are trying to convince them of whether its positive or negative, atheistic or theistic. If you want to convince someone of something, you have to meet their requirements for that to happen.

 

[Delta-9]

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.

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.

 

[Looncall]

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.

On the other hand, it seems likely that the gospels were cooked up so as to match the prophecies.

Your "our day" prophecies could have been predicted by any intelligent person.

"Burden of proof" refers to who in a discussion is responsible for providing evidence. It does not refer to the evidence itself.

It is easy to twist any writings so as to seem prophecies. I suppose one could do as much with a cookbook, if one tried hard enough. Your argument is laughable.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Confirmation bias.

Don't all religions have their prophesies?
People cherry pick, they find patterns in everything; meaning in random data. They see Jesus in a tortilla and hear cryptic messages in records played backwards.

 

[Estro Felino]

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?

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

 

[Willamena]

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?

Both have the burden for their claims.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Yes. Even to posit, "I cannot know," is a positive claim.

 

[Looncall]

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.

However, many atheists are just unconvinced of the existence of god(s), rather claiming that they do not exist. The two positions are distinct.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. … So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

Out of curiosity, did you ever consider the possibility that this has been addressed (frequently). See search.

 

[Norrin-6-]

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.

I'm going to agree with psychoslice. While I think your position is laudable, there's really no reason to meet theists at the half-way mark. I don't think there's any burden of proof on the claim that God does not exist because theists are operating on a lack of evidence. It's logical to assume the negative so long as no evidence has been presented. You seem to be arguing semantics to me; that doesn't give us the burden of proof.

Now, on the other hand, if a nonbeliever were to claim that the Bible was full of lies, we do have something tangible to work with. In that case I would say that the burden of proof rests on the non-believer.

 

[Glaurung]

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 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.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

 

[Susanpalli,JW]

On the other hand, it seems likely that the gospels were cooked up so as to match the prophecies.

Your "our day" prophecies could have been predicted by any intelligent person.

"Burden of proof" refers to who in a discussion is responsible for providing evidence. It does not refer to the evidence itself.

It is easy to twist any writings so as to seem prophecies. I suppose one could do as much with a cookbook, if one tried hard enough. Your argument is laughable.

Well, I believe that the following prophecy will come true, so for you to judge if it does in the future:

The religious systems of the world, called Babylon the Great, will be destroyed. (Revelation 18)

Your thoughts?

 

[George-ananda]

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

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'.

 

[ScuzManiac]

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.

So, I could say right now that one day a hurricane will practically destroy another major city in the US...

There will be a terrorist attack sometime within the next 200 years in Israel...

Anddddd....

A public figure will die when the world least expects it...

Those are all things likely to happen but that doesn't make me Holy.

 

[idav]

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.

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.

 

[ScuzManiac]

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.

All Atheists have to do is say "prove it" and kick back...

Done deal.