With Whom Does The Burden Of Proof Lie?

Question

First, a few short definitions are in order:
Theist: one who believes in the existence of a God or gods.
Hard atheist: one who believes that God does not exist.
Soft atheist: one who lacks a belief in a God or gods.

The God hypothesis:
Claim A: God exists.
Claim B: God does not exist.

From the definitions above, theists adhere to claim A, hard atheists adhere to claim B, and soft atheists adhere to neither.

In a rational discussion of the God Hypothesis:
Theists must shoulder the burden of proof fro claim A. if they fail, God is not shown to exist, but God is not necessarily shown not to exist either. Hard atheists must shoulder the burden for claim B. If they fail, God is not shown to not exist, but neither is he shown to exist. Soft atheists have no burden of proof as they have made no claim of belief. They simply lack a belief in God's existence.

So, does anyone disagree with the burdens of proof as I have laid them out here?

Some interesting responses!

%%%%, you said that, "no.
there's no such thing as hard and soft atheists.
you seem to confuse that with agnostics." Which may be true. but even if we change the "soft" atheists" to "agnostics," don't the burdens of proof as I have laid them out hold true? Agnostics have made no claim to belief, they simply hold that God's existence cannot be known.

Matt J, are you making the claim that they do? In that case, the burden of proof lies with you. I have made no claim one way or the other, and therefore need prove nothing in this instance. I might say that I do not believe that Unicorns exist, but that is different than a "unicorn atheist's" position that, Unicorns do not exist.

The important thing to remember here is that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim. Not matter what that claim is.

Also, since this may not have been clear from the question's title, this question has nothing to do with whether a God or gods actually exist or not. It deals only with the burden of proof and who must bear it.

Chippy v1.0.0.3b, Isn't saying, "God does not exist," making a claim as well?

And if it is not possible to prove a negative, is taking the position that a negative has been proven (i.e. 'god does not exist) a reasonable position to take?

Answer 1

I don't really think that theists have a burden of proof, because their beliefs are based completely in faith.

They might try to provide evidence, by pointing to 'miracles' and things like that, but really it's all just faith, and that's all it can ever be. It's almost impossible to prove something which is based entirely on blind faith.

It's not really possible to prove that no god exists, either. You can make a probabilistic argument to illustrate that it's highly improbable, but there's always at least a small possibility on which theists can base their faith.

Thus I don't think either side has a burden of proof.

Answer 2

people regularly corrupt the word "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" into "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". The latter of direction, isn't authentic. With each and every time you seem for something and fail to locate any incidences of it, you may shrink the risk of it, yet on no account to 0. the burden of evidence would not lie with the destructive declare. that's the place Russell's teapot is available in. If I say that there is a teapot orbiting the sunlight, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, too small too be seen by employing a telescope, and this is been there because of the fact that in the previous we had spaceflight capacity, that declare has a burden of evidence. The declare that the teapot would not exist would not carry any burden of evidence. You left an significant and easy fact out of the middle: "i do no longer think that God exists." enable us to learn the declare. No reason is given. they have made no affirmative declare of nonexistence. there is not any burden of evidence. as a result, although, there are multiple believers who will say that the guy honestly believes yet is in denial. there is not any evidence to refute that declare, yet there are some who will. the burden of evidence argument, as atheists use that's commonly valid. The destructive burden of evidence utilized by employing theists is commonly no longer valid.

Answer 3

It always lies with the person making a claim. And once again like so many others you have misdefined atheist. Sorry but your entire post falls apart because you start from a flawed definition.

The atheist by definition is making no claim other than being 'without theism'. The prefix 'a' mean not or without. So the only thing the atheist is claiming is to not have the theists belief.

Perhaps you could argue the atheist has the burden to prove they have no theistic belief but that's a little silly.

---
Hard atheist, soft atheist? Meaningless noise. The word defines itself. You're resorting to making up definitions to make an opinionated point.

Answer 4

I believe God is real. Atheists claim God doesn't exist. So I say the burden of proof is on the person who says "You're wrong, God is real/not real."

No one can physically prove that God exists or doesn't exist. That's the bottom line.

Answer 5

Some might say your "soft atheist" is an agnostic.

Nevertheless, I'd say I'm an atheist and I don't have to prove anything. In fact, I would argue philosophically that you can't prove anything outside of mathematics. The theories one has about the real world only have greater or lesser amounts of supporting evidence. There is essentially no evidence for a non-Deist god, and so I'm an atheist.

Answer 6

If someone wants to make society's laws or make claims against someone based upon theism, then the burden of proof ideally lies with the claimant.

If I was to 'damn someone to hell' and treat them like a social pariah, and educate other people's kids against them (for instance, a gay person) or make laws against them based upon religious doctrine, then I would be expected to prove the deity's existence and authority.

Answer 7

The burden of proof lies with the believer.

Answer 8

God does. God gave us His word.

Romans 1:16-20
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith ; as it is written, "the Just Shall Live by Faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead:
so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

God says man is without excuse when it comes to believing in Him. He puts the burden of proof on every individual and says that you have no proof not to believe in Me.

Since this propitiation by Christ suffices for the whole world, there is no reason anyone should spend eternity in hell unless he voluntarily rejects God's truth.

Answer 9

the burden of proof lies with the believer

Answer 10

burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

the claim is god exists.

the argument is that he doesnt.

you cannot prove a negative.