Who bears the burden of proof? In a debate about the existence of God: Who should prove what? Is it Theists who are supposed to prove that God exist; or Atheists who must demonstrate that God do not and cannot exist?

Comments

• False on all counts.
  
  1) It certainly is possible to prove a negative. It's done all the time. The actual point is that it is impossible to prove a UNIVERSAL negative, but even that isn't correct: one of the principal laws of logic, totally proved and inarguable, is a universal negative: the law of non-contradiction, and by it we can prove manifold things such as there are no married bachelors and there are no round squares. We can also prove that no jewelers’ rouge is explosive; no foods take more calories to digest than they contain; and no diamonds are mushy. see: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
  
  2) Any positive claim is a negative claim viewed from another angle, and likewise any negative claim can be re-structured as a positive claim; e.g., the claim Theism is False is essentially identical to the claim Materialism is True. The atheist Materialist is making the positive universal claim that Matter-Energy and Space-Time are all that is.
  
  3) The burden of proof is on the claimant - the person trying to deny his interlocutor their opinion, conviction, or belief.
  
  In matters of custom, convention, and moral and ethical judgments, the burden is on the one who is challenging the status quo or the received wisdom.
  
  In just about all matters academic, the burden is on the one who is challenging the current prevailing consensus, reigning paradigm, or intellectual synthesis.
  
  In matters of religion as well as all personal experiences, the burden of proof lies on whoever is trying to get another to change or repudiate his beliefs. That is, if Mr. A says he was abducted by a UFO for a week, and he is trying to convince Mr. B that he's telling the truth, the burden of proof is on Mr. A.; but if Mr. A has merely told his story, and doesn't really care if Mr. B doubts it, yet Mr. B is attempting to get Mr. A to admit that he's lying or recognize that he is or was delusional, then the burden of proof is on Mr. B.
  
  The burden of proof always lies on the one that's trying to *compel* others to change their views to match his own. ("Compel" is meant in its dialectical sense: the point of a Proof is to deny another his opinion. Formal logic is the intellectual equivalent of brute force.)
  
  It should, however, be noted that this burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question. Much of the divide between Theists and Atheists on this matter is that they don't share the same conventions and community standards, and so have radically different ideas as to which inductive arguments are strong and which inductive arguments are weak.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on August 8th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I've seen this argument many times, but it is misleading. A reasonable view of reality involves looking at the evidence -- observable reality -- and accepting where the evidence points as probably true. We have no evidence of a second moon orbiting the Earth, so we can assume it doesn't exist (but you may choose to believe it is there anyway: this require "faith"). If someday evidence appears, reasonable people will need to adjust their conclusions.
  
  This is the same with belief in a god. There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, so the normal conclusion is "it doesn't exist". If you have faith in a supernatural being against the evidence, you are welcome to your opinion, but your position is not equally strong.

  • Report
  

  by jtheory on August 12th, 2010

• The evidence is the creation itself. Similar to finding a house in the woods. The house itself is evidence that, despite not seeing the designer and builder, there evidently was one.

  • Report
  

  by Franklin on August 20th, 2010

Comments

• yup.

  • Report
  

  by holeinthewoods on May 24th, 2009

• Wrong, if "god" exists all he/she/it has to do is show up, proof positive.
  The facts that "GOD" is not present-what's the snail mail address or phone number-the vast distance between theory and practice in churches and 100rds of discrepancies in the bible, last is an authentic historical record which shows religions changing doctrine to fit changing social/political conditions. These "facts" indicate non-existence, circumstantial yes but that is at lest tangible compared to faith and belief.

  • Report
  

  by Robert on May 24th, 2009

• I would argue that God cannot prove His existence, since that would negate faith and free will. And I would hardly look to religion's activities for proof of God. Religion and religious texts were made by man. Nothing made by man is perfect or infallible.

  • Report
  

  by the artist formerly known as triorion on May 25th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• DING-DING-DING!
  
  WE HAVE A WINNER!
  
  Please step up, sir, and claim your prize!

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on August 18th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• WHOA!!! I found another rock EXACTLY like yours. It's small and sort of roundish, and kinda gray-colored, but you can sorta see some lavender in it. I'll bet it's worth a lot of money! But I can give you a deal on it.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

Comments

• YES! I hate the people who say "If God's not real, prove it."

  • Report
  

  by Da D-Man on August 13th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments