Who has the Burden of Proof? Atheists or theists?

Question

The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported.

It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try to define in advance who has the burden of proof.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality.

Answer 1

Theists, of course. What many theists fail to realize is that their god or gods that they believe in wholeheartedly come under the broad category of non-perceivable objects. Note I said objects and not entities because there is not even proof to say whether their god is an entity or an object. A theist saying there is a god is exactly the same as someone pointing to an empty space in front of them and claiming that there is a pot of gold right there but only that person can see it. What theists see is limited only by their imagination and if it is a task for other people to disprove what a theist sees then it is a task with no end because there is an infinite number of invisible objects that can be imagined.

Answer 2

The burden of proof lands mostly on atheists. Besides common sense, theists do have evidences for God, which is why the majority of human beings agree there is a God. The people going against common knowledge have the burden of showing proof as to why the majority are wrong. The fact that there is so many concrete evidences(like the ones you've described, and many more) that the Bible is truth is the reason most humans who agree there is a God, are Bible believing Christians. The ideas put forth trying to discredit the validity of the Bible are extreme bias presuppositions. The dating techniques(radiometric dating, fossil records, etc.) are a joke. One scientist, using these flawed techniques will say a rock, fossil, or any other object is 55 million years old, another scientist, using the same techniques, and same object will say it's 5 thousand years old.?? So people who cite these techniques as proof against the Bible are ill-informed. Others take words way out of context to say the Bible says "the earth was flat" among other odd statements, which shows they have no idea how to read or understand the Bible, in which they shouldn't comment on the subject. These arguments fall flat when any serious scholar explains how misinformed these type of statements are. There is way too much evidence proving the Bible true, so anyone who uses these flawed arguments to ignore the validity of this one of a kind book are being ignorant. Anyone who does a Google search on any of the subjects you described will see the Bible is completely accurate and truthful. Anyone who wants to study up on why the Bible is true, just Google: "how do we know the Bible is true" all the facts are there. Also check out "scientific proof of God" on Google or YouTube. If you see all these evidences for God, and the Bible, and ignore it, that makes you ignorant. The atheists and other religions have the burden of proof, not people who already show proof. Atheists need to prove why there is no God, and everyone would stop believing, other religions need to prove why there books are truth, and people would believe them. There is no archeological, scientific, textual, historical, or any other evidence that ANY other religious book is factual. The Holy Bible has massive evidence, and it's easy to research and understand.

Answer 3

The burden of proof pertains to the one making a claim that is outside the realm of what might be considered "the normal". Thus, god falls in that teritory outside of "the normal" and in the same fashion, those claiming his existence are burdened with the job of proving it.

Answer 4

I say that the burden of proof falls on theists. They claim that god is real, as well as god did this, god did that ect... So they are the ones that should provide proof that god exists. Stating the bible is proof enough is nothing more than a cop-out.

Answer 5

This, like many of the other questions, is bound to go round and round. Each would claim that the other has the burden of proof. When talking about such a subject, I guess we could look to the criminal justice system. If someone is shot, the person who is shot doesn't have to prove that there is a gun. The gun shot wound is evidence enough. One would not assert if the gun was never found that there is no wound. So I'd like to say that the existence of creation is proof of a creator. Just because I can't show Him to you doesn't mean that He doesn't exist!

Answer 6

I think the framing of the question sets the stage for the answer. It assumes there is a burden of proof, which is typically the position of the athiest: prove that god exists. What if there is nothing to prove? What if the universe is rigged so that god is unprovable? For example, what if we take the concept of "you create your own reality" to the point where one believes that if you believe in god, god exists, and if you don't, god doesn't. In this case, belief precedes existance, and one could never prove the existance of a god to one who doesn't believe, because that god doesn't exist.

Answer 7

Well, if the burden of proof is of paramount import, than I would think, that the burden of proof, lies with the person who claims life by chance as much as it concerns the creationist.
Scientifically speaking, there is not a single scientific observation of anything except life-preceded by life.
Honestly, there is not a single person alive, that has observed how life originated, so at the very least, this argument is a draw.
The answerer below, has stipulated terms of current consensus.
By his reasoning and logic, as the majority of persons in the past believed in a creator, his logic is thus susceptible to current popular opinion. If the proof of truth is, "the norm", than truth is entirely subjective to popular opinion. Not a very solid grounding for reasonable logic and rationale, don't you think?
This is tantamount to making the sweeping generalization that scientific fact is subject too a democratic vote.
How on earth can anyone accede to facts being subject to popular vote? This philosophy in it's body, totally denies the objective of logic and reason by means of tacit proof.
If the answerer is suggesting that proof is based, not on proved fact but on popular opinion, than the scientific method has been ejected to the side of the thinking person's road.

Answer 8

Clearly a claim of existence has the burden of proof. At least concerning every other matter in the universe!

Answer 9

I think no one has "the burden of proof". If you believe you believe no matter what it is.Why do people have to make other people believe in what they believe? that to me is not vary nice of them. Do not fores ant thing on me,it is not my problem if the Atheists and the Theists can't get a long. They just need to grow up and let bygones be bygones. Can't they agree to disagree? If you believe in God than goody for you. If you do not than goody for you too. I am one who does not believe in just one God but many. I do not make or try to make some one believe as I do. My oldest child as gone to church and I have a few Bibles in my house ( with some other books as well) and we talk about it all. When the time is right she will make up her own mind as will my youngest. I try to inform them of all kinds of things in this wired world of ours.

Answer 10

In accordance with Occam's Razor, the theists have the burden of proof. Disregarding other evidence, a universe with God is more complex than a universe without God, so it's the theists who have to prove their position beyond the doubt caused by Occam's Razor.