Who has the burden of proof?

Question

In the matter of whether or not God exists, are the Theists responsible for proving God's existance or are the Aetheists responsible for disproving God's existance? I'm not looking for which side is right. I'm simply trying to figure out who possesses the burden of proof.

I would prefer it if people were to explain their reasoning, but if you just want the 2 points, feel free to just give a one-word answer.

Generally, the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim of something's existance. For example, if I say that there's a ghost in my attic or that I own a Babe Ruth rookie card, it's up to me to show it to you.

However, the burden also generally lies on the person with the less accepted belief. For example, if I were to deny the moon's existance, I would be responsible for proving my point.
The majority of the world is made up of people who are associated with religions, so this would indicate that the Aetheists have the burden.
However, there is no single religion that has a contains 50% of people in the world. Therefore, the burden of proof would be equal for Theists and Aetheists.

The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that I'm confused.

I just want to reitirate something I said earlier, I AM NOT ASKING WHO'S RIGHT. I'm asking who has the BURDEN OF PROOF. (Sorry about having to resort to using the caps lock button.)

Answer 1

The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. If a person shifts the burden of proof, he or she commits the fallacy of Ad Ignorantium or Argument from ignorance. It goes like this:

A is true.
There is nothing that proves A.
So we assume A is true

Plug in UFO landings:

UFO’s have landed.
There is no evidence that proves UFO’s have landed.
Therefore, we assume it is true until it is denied.

If a theists claims there is a god, then he or she cannot say, God exists, there is no evidence to deny God's existence, so we assume there is a God until proven false. Likewise, an atheist will say the exact opposite: God doesn't exist, there is no evidence to support God's existence, so we assume there isn't a God until evidence can be given for his existence.

Answer 2

First of all, you can prove the existence of something. However, you can prove the non-existence of god. It is a basic law of physics and science. Remember science class?

You form a hypothesis right? God exists

You gather facts, information, and test right? God has properties, omnipotent, omniscient, Omni benevolent. The subject should not have any conflicting properties.

If the hypothesis in question doesn't add up right, or doesn't work out even once you disregard it. God has conflicting properties that does not add up or make logical sense. His existence with his properties is a logical impossibility.

You cannot test faith because it is not based on reason or fact nor based on logic. Now in a illogical world, this god may exist. However, do not claim that your belief is based on logic because it isn’t.

Now on the existence of an undefined god, you cannot disprove or prove it can you? That is why I am agnostic. Too many atheists are just as blind as Christians. Yes the biblical god does not exist, however, a supernatural being could, it would be stupid to say one didn't. How can you test something that you can't comprehend?

Answer 3

It is a saying in the skeptical community that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof is with the one who is proposing something that isn't "obvious", or would appear to contradict known facts.

If I tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my basement that predicts the future, you would certainly be skeptical, and demand some kind of evidence. You would likely be unconvinced if I showed you a book I'd written that was "inspired" by the Unicorn, wherein the Unicorn says that it exists and can predict the future. You would probably want some first hand proof or evidence. If I said this wasn't the original book, but was 3rd or 4th hand and translated from another language, your credulity would no doubt grow, and you would demand very clear evidence of his existence, nothing that could be attributable to random chance or natural processes.

This is exactly analogous to god, and his book. The thing is, no theist agrees with the analogy, and wants to make a special claim or case for proof of god, ignoring the ordinary rules of evidence. (How do we know the bible is true? Because it is God's word. How do we know God is real? Because it says so in the bible. .....uh, sorry....try again Clarence Darrow)

Answer 4

oyvey223,
I like this question a lot. The Christian might put himself in the direction of proving God, but I not scripturally obligated to do so. Since there will never be an Atheist who can disprove God, I'm not waiting for that event.

So the burden of proof doesn't exist, unless someone speaks out of order. Those that are Christian that say that they can prove it had better have God ready to show. So far that hasn't happened in a long time. Those Atheists that say that God doesn't exist: amateurs. Lazy unscientific amateurs who are so ready to throw their God LOGIC out the door that they are blind to the reality of it.

God reveals Himself to those He wants from this world. All those other people are just going to have to wait. And don't worry, they will get their proof.

Answer 5

Believers have the Burden of Proof. There are two reasons that I can see. The first is that it's the Theists making the claims, and we (atheists) are simply saying that they are wrong. The claim (of God) is what must be proven. Secondly, you cannot prove a negative. It's not possible. So, you must prove the positive (the assertion that God exists, as opposed to that he doesn't exist).

Answer 6

There is no need to prove anything and nothing can be proven in this argument. People either believe or they don’t. When the burden of proof comes into play is when a believer tells a non-believer what God wants everyone to do. Then the proof lies with the person claiming to know God well enough to know what Gods desires are.

Answer 7

In cases of existence, the burden of proof lies on the "pro" side of the argument. It is so because negative existence is comparatively VERY difficuly to proove. Prooving negative existence requires either omniscience or the ability to prove that the subject CANNOT exist based on some knowledge of the universe. For instance, I can state categorically that there are no invisible pink unicorns because an invisible thing cannot have a quality of color. Conversely, I cannot prove that there are no visible pink unicorns. The creature could exist in our universe, so I would have to be able to observe the entire universe at the same time to proove that they don't exist.

Ideas carry the burden of proof against common knowledge in practical, day-to-day life, when we must make decisions without taking the time and effort to find out all of the available evidence. The burden exists because proponents of the unpopular argument must submit substantial evidence to convince you; they cannot require you to find the evidence on your own. The same burden does not carry in formal logic. The use of popular opinion or belief as evidence is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum", or "argument by consensus". Thus, if you're unwilling or unable to research the evidence regarding whether or not God exists, the atheists have the burden of providing you with evidence for his non-existence if they wish to change your mind. However, in any active debate or for a person attempting to make an educated decision, the theists have the burden of proof.

Answer 8

Of course the theists are going to say that the atheists have the responsibility to disprove god's existence, simply because it is impossible to either prove or disprove.
In my mind, science has already eroded the Judeo-Christian mythology to the point where it is unneccesary to disprove god. The only evidence anyone cen show of god's existence is a) it says so in (whatever book); and b) I just know he exists.
Using those arguments, one could argue the existence of Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, with about the same level of validity.
Unfortunately, since the creator-being is supposed to be completely intangible, and can only be detected by those who already believe he exists, it is impossible to offer any real proof either way.

Answer 9

The burden of proof is on the believer. Both sides rely on faith in their world view. Atheists point toward the physical as having all the answers.. Theists point to the metaphysical... that piece of mankind that science cannot explain.

The believer must weigh the facts and the feelings. Like the wind, we can feel it, but we cannot see from where it comes or to where it goes... but it is there none the less :-)

Answer 10

God gave me proof that I could touch. He healed me. All it took was a little faith and trust. God does the rest in His time in His way. It took me 40 years to get to a point where i could do that but, God is faithful. If seeing is believing , I see.
The burden of proof would be wjth whoever is making the claim.