isn't the burden of proof on the BELIEVER, not the non-believer?
we assume something isn't true until someone can prove that it is. this is the premise behind our court system's "innocent until proven guilty"
non-believers don't have to prove anything (or rather disprove). that's the believer's responsibility.
thoughts?
2007-05-04 15:30:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes. If the burden of proof was on the non-believer, (the one hearing the claim being made, not making the claim) then everything would be chaos, because anything that the imagination can come up with will have to be regarded as truth until it can be disproved-- if someone tries to claim it's truth. (That includes the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, mermaids, unicorns, etc. etc. etc.)
2007-05-04 15:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some would not believe something if they were smacked over the head with it or it was right before them. For anyone that wants to believe something, it is easy, such as that Bush tells the truth in all he says. anyone with a brain knows that is a lie but many believe it. Some things you take by faith rather than having to prove everything. Do you have to be proven that gravity works when you step off a cliff or do you simply believe it? If you have to have proof, you won't live long, will you? Some things you accept by faith.
2007-05-04 15:37:31 · answer #2 · answered by ramall1to 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The proof is in the pudding my little sweet. I along with many others can testify in a court of law...and its not hear say. So it will be admissable. I am an eyewitness to the events your honor. Oh hey, How are you Your Honor, most Holy One, Jesus, Judge over all the earth ? Its good to see you residing over the court today. Let the proceddings begin
2007-05-04 15:35:02 · answer #3 · answered by biblestudent07 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
every person can take the load of evidence in the journey that they pick to, yet i do not imagine it really is something both area can use to their income. the only which surely has the load of evidence is God, who in order that occurs to be no longer on trial for something. So god has the load of evidence so a recommendations as i'm in contact. As a Christian, i am going to no longer sense too undesirable if God would not do something with it. i'm no longer about to attend to God like an invalid. he's fairly able to proving himself. I let Him make sure at the same time as.
2016-11-25 19:16:24 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is there any requirement that either side prove anything to the other? I do not believe there is a burden at all. To respect one another's beliefs includes respecting a lack of belief. To love one another is to accept one another as is.
2007-05-04 15:37:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would say yes, since the burden of proof for scientific, psychological and medical hypotheses is on the person proposing the hypothesis, not on others.
2007-05-04 15:34:24 · answer #6 · answered by Joy M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the false belief is in the small self,the ego, the P.O.V. // if we ?examine how the mind works we see that its all concepts.thoughts // that which SEES the thoughts is the REAL but the ego blows it off because it has taken it for granted because of P.O.V.///the SEER is what could be refered to as God. and what is seen is just a modification of the SEER.unnecessary and impersonal ,pointing back at the SOURCE
2007-05-04 15:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by robertbobbybob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believers don't have to prove anything either. That's between you and God. Seek and find or don't. The information is there.
2007-05-04 15:36:10 · answer #8 · answered by Red neck 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Agree.
2007-05-04 15:38:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Burden of proof" is irrelevant in arguments about God's existence because God's existence (or non-existence) is beyond proof.
2007-05-04 15:57:01 · answer #10 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋