Who has the burden of proof in debates between atheists and theists?

Question

Atheists typically argue that the burden of proof lies squarely with the theists because they are the ones making the claim that a god exists. Theists, however, think that by rejecting the theist position, atheists also assume a burden of proof. Who is right?
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.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Spirit Princess Ninnygobblins.

Answer 1

Debate all you want. It's what one truly believes that matters. Faith has never required a debate.

Answer 2

The burden of proof always rests with whoever is making a positive existential claim. In this case, the theist.

I believe that there is an invisible pink elephant that plays the piano in my basement. Prove that there isn't. See?

It's an inherently futile debate, really. This is because the theist, in contrast to the atheist, does not require proof, but rather faith. And faith, by its definition, is a belief in something for which proof cannot be supplied.

Thus, there is little proof that the theist would accept, and there is little faith that the atheist would accept.

But then, what fun would that be?

Answer 3

In my opinion according to how you presented the question, then the burden of proof would fall on those who believe in a God. There are millions of examples of horrible things happening to humanity which ultimately leads to the Problem of Evil-- Why would a good God let bad things happen to good people? This dilemma is why many don't believe in an omnipotent father figure watching over us and keeping score to determine if we are good people. Atheists are not as morally offended by theists but many theists are offended by Atheists. The burden of proof can also lie on who initiated the debate.

Answer 4

Yep, I agree, if they want someone to believe it or accept it they need to provide the proof. But I find that most don't care for converting anyone and I rarely speak against it unless it's in the spirit of a friendly debate or I feel like it's being pushed on me, or worst of all when some one makes a wild claim like "I guess it's God's will" or "It's all part of the plan". Because that's just an excuse to let things happen without trying to fix anything. Other than that, to each his own, but in a debate, yes, the believer ought to do the proving or the disbeliever has nothing to refute in the first place!

Answer 5

Let God equal "something" and therefore no God equals "nothing". (That's pretty standard, shall we all agree?)

Would the debate be between, say, a believer in Odin and a believer in the "God", then both would bear the burden to prove that one or the other "something" exists.

That the debate is between a believer in God (believer in "something") and an atheist (believer in "nothing") the burden of proof is on the theist.

In no way is there a proof for "nothing". Go ahead: prove Zero. In doing so one must first prove that there is "something " to be taken away in order to achieve zero.

In any argument, the zero, or null hypothesis position requires no evidence and refuting it (proving that "something" does indeed exist) requires the evidence.

Answer 6

I think the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to be sure he/she is believing the right doctrine. I don't owe anyone "proof" of a living God, but I would advise them to ingore the evidence at their own peril.

I think athiests make a huge departure from logic when they say that God doesn't exist because there's no scientific proof. If they were REALLY concerned about being properly aligned with science, they would simply say, we don't know.

Scientists don't patently deny the existence of things they haven't discovered yet. If nothing exists outside what we have scientific proof for right now, then aren't we saying we know all we need to know and that scientific discovery has run its course?

How can athiests stand so firmly on what is such an obvious double standard regarding the use of science?

Answer 7

THe way I look at it is the burden of proof about God is irrelevant untill the Atheist can, using his or her world view, account for the laws of logic. They like GOd are immaterial and cannot be tested with any of the five senses.

All arguments depend on the laws of logic must be assumed to be true in order to argue at all. The atheist has left him self in a bit of a Jam, without a unchanging God in which universal truths are a reflection of and source of, how can you have the laws of logic, they simply cannot be accounted for. So before I even move on to God with an atheist I ask them to explain using there world view and not borrowing from mine how they can account for the laws of Logic.

The Atheist has to be an empiricist, by using induction they will explain there world around them but ask them to justify induction and they can only use induction. their world view reaches a dead end and becomes circular. If you cant give an account for the ability to argue your point using your world view why should I except what you consider proof about God. At least the Christian would view can sustain its self without begging questions.

Answer 8

good debaters always try to set the terms of the debate, theists naturally argue that the burden of proof is with atheists. so they ask, have we turned over every stone in the universe in our search for god? obviously i have to say that i have not done that. but why does god hide? shouldn't it be rather easy to find? rather like finding a haystack in a needle, you know?

Answer 9

IF God exists, his existence should be easy to prove. Why are they complaining that they can't prove it. What we believe is the lack of existence. It's much harder to prove a negative, so the burden of proof lies with the Theists.

atheist (THINK)

Answer 10

So you're saying theists should add the burden of actual "proof" to their burden of blind Faith, which they already consider proof? How many do you think are willing to carry that much weight, even for God?

Answer 11

The only burden of PROOF that a believer has outside of the HOLY BIBLE is in the heart and life of that believer, something that a nonbeliever would never know or could never debate, God is the only one who knows what truly lies in anyones heart.