Is it the believer or the skeptic that has the burden of proof? Read the rest of the question . . .?

Question

In religious topics or any other topic.
But I'm thinking mainly of the question of God's (or gods') existance.

BTW--give reasons.

I have changed my mind on a number of issues due to being presented with proof. I think if you say 'well a skeptic will never be convinced cause no proof is enough for them' that is just a cop out. And if you say I have to just put aside any doubt and believe it, then I have nothing to do with it, whatever 'it' happens to be.

Answer 1

Well, the person making the claim always bears the burden of proof. It follows that believers and atheists bear the burden of proof in the matter of the existence of God. Simply being skeptical requires no proof, but it certainly helps when it's available. You wouldn't know that from talking to many people, but that's how it works. Now, no one is obligated to produce any proof to justify their beliefs to you. But those people should not expect you to adopt their beliefs based on their word alone. Good luck!

Edit: I thought I might add that it is possible for skeptics to make claims that require proof. And it is possible for the burden of proof to shift as an argument progresses based on the claims one makes. But in general, the burden of proof always starts with the party making the initial claim.

Yet another edit: Skeptics often get stuck with the burden of proof when they make claims to refute one or more of the premises of another party's argument. It does not suffice to simply say "That's not true!" You have to say why, or give some evidence to the contrary, or point out a flaw in the other side's argument. Only finding a flaw in the logic of the other argument can exempt you from the burden of proof.

The reason for this manner of argumentation is that it is obviously the duty of the person speaking to justify what they say. Arguing would be ridiculous if the burden of proof were laid on the listener rather than the person making the claim.

Answer 2

Neither side has any burden of proof. The burden of proof is always upon the person that makes the claim. A skeptic does not make a claim and can therefore have no burden of proof. A believer might not be making a claim either, though and simply accepts it with blind faith.

However in the context of a debate, if an atheist asserts with certainty 'There is no God' then the burden of proof is on them much the same as a Christian or Jew or Muslim that asserts 'There is a God'. That's why I like being an agnostic, I get invited to dinner and I don't have anything to prove and no pills to push :)

Answer 3

The one who is asserting a proposition to be true... such as "god exists"... has the burden of proof. A person who takes an opposing position need only refute the arguments or evidence that is presented in support of the proposition. The problem that religion has is that there has never been any compelling evidence to support the proposition that god exists. About the most compelling thing that has been offered is the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy... i.e., when science has not yet found a natural explanation for something, the believer says "See? You can't explain that; therefore, God did it." The problem with that (apart from being logically flawed) is that the gaps keep disappearing, and the 'God of the Gaps' keeps getting smaller and smaller, and less and less significant. The god of the gaps lives right at the bleeding edge of science... a myth and a logical fallacy, rolled into one.

P.S.: Note that someone taking the 'strong atheist' position... i.e., asserting that the proposition "God does not exist" is 'true'. would also bear the burden of proof.

Answer 4

It's not hard to figure that you're the skeptic. It's ok I was where you are so I totally understand. It doesn't matter what anyone says to you, you cannot be convinced by arguement. Salvation doesn't come that way. If you want to know the truth, it is you that must seek the truth with all your heart. If you do this the truth will be revealed to you. How it is revealed to you is through Gods word. The Bible I used to think was just a story book, so when I tried to read it I didn't get anything out of it. To read his words in search of the truth will help you find the truth. You can try that route by reading the book of Romans and god will let you know where you stand before him. My eyes were opened when I heard a pastor teaching a series called Why I believe. His name is D. James Kennedy, he released that in book form and tape form. He did his homework and documented everything. The bottom line is there is nothing you can do to get to heaven it is only faith that can get you there. No convincing needed and nothing can be proven to you.

Answer 5

The burden of proof is on the person doing the persuading regardless of subject or belief of either person.

Though, putting the burden of proof on the believer would be more logical than on the skeptic. The believer only has to show a single, provable incidence of god while the skeptic would have to show, provably, that god exists no place in space-time. Space-time is too large to actually do that.

Answer 6

It is impossible to prove or disprove the question of God's existence. Why do people waste their time asking? If speaking logically, you cannot prove a negative assumption. What proof would you like them to offer. I found Gods toenails and therefore he doesn't exist? That doesn't work. The burden of proof is on the believer. When you test something in a lab, (oh no science talk here) you are trying to prove you hypothesis, not disprove it. If in the attempt to prove it your data turns out to be inconclusive that doesn't always prove you were wrong, only that you weren't looking in the right place. I am sooooo sick of people posting this question, and having no grasp of how logical systemic though works.

Answer 7

In regards to questions that revolve around God, a believer has something called Faith....which is the belief in something that can not be seen/proven. So as you can not prove that God exsists unless you can have him show up at your party and turn some water into wine, the only person who can even provide proof is the skeptic. But as he can not prove that God doesn't exsist solely because he doesn't show up at your party......the debate will continue forever. That is part of the reason why these debates go on forever, because nobody can PROVE which side is right.

Answer 8

Well, I don't think it's either way 100% of the time. If I find myself defending my atheism for a while, I'll switch the burden of proof. But if a xian really believes that god exists, how will you convince them the the burden of proof is on them to prove their non-sensical, fictional view? You can fight about that all day or get dow to the nitty-gritty of the real debate. I choose to have the real debate.

Just like if someone wants to call me pro-death or anti-life or whatever, fine... use that label, now let's talk about the issue...

Answer 9

In our society it is the person that says it is or was or is not or was not, that has the burden of proof. Such as if someone says you did something they have to prove you did it, and to defend yourself you have to prove you did not. Therefore the burden or proof, of whether God exist lies not only with the believer but also with the skeptic. Prove that he does - prove that he does not, but when neither side will listen to the other side you may as well be talking to the wall.

Answer 10

In general, I would say the believer has the burden of proof but only to their level of satisfaction. For example, as we grow and learn, we come to conclusions (beliefs) about life. As time goes by we get additional input which tends to alter or reinforce our original conclusion. We are all believers in one form or another.

The question really is are we open enough to consider new facts or are we at the point where "facts" only bring unwanted confusion. (Don't confuse me, my mind is made up!)

As to Gods existence; salvation for a Christian and a Muslim is personal. I am a Christian and I would hope for each individuals sake they become Christians also, however if they don't then it's on them!