Do christians understand what burden of proof means?

Question

It would seem that the standard response by many christians regarding the non-existence of god is "Prove it".
And I wondered if they understand the premise of "Burden of Proof"?
Basically,for those who don't,it is up to those making the claim to provide proof or at the very least evidence of their claim not for others to disprove their claim.
Does this clarify things?

Answer 1

Well...it's actually "burden of evidence". "Burden of proof" is a higher standard of proof, required in law but not in debate. This means that they're getting off light - they don't even have to prove that God exists, just provide some sort of evidence, and even that isn't there.

It's pretty obvious that "you can't prove a negative" remains a completely alien concept to far too many people.

Answer 2

Bless you William R. This mindless religious weakling says that my premise for belief is far different from yours. I believe that God showed himself to man from the very moment of his creation. Belief was not an option but the knowledge of God's existence was fact. And that ever since that time man has the choice not for denying God's existence. But rather of accepting a relationship with that same God or rejecting it. And that choice has been the same generation, after generation, after generation.

Also I believe the ancient accounts of man specifically from the Jewish sacred texts to the Christian texts that record God's intervention in the affairs of man. That account is a four to five thousand year accounting until the birth of Jesus Christ and the formation of the church.

Now the church and the followers of God and the rituals and traditions are evidence that man can have faith in the impossible. And even to attain the impossible.

There is no way that anyone can disprove te accounts that God does not exist. There has been no proof from science that God does not exist. Therefore based on these two premises alone, God does exist.

Answer 3

You are kidding, right?

This is the standard response by many Christians?
I haven't noticed that. I think you're wrong.

I don't answer that way and I've been checking out a lot of answers and have found only one even similar.

This is all ways the response by Atheists, as it should be.
But a real borne again Christian, should know that ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
This is written in scripture, that the Holy Spirit is sent to convince and convict the world; of sin because of unbelief.

I personally don't expect anyone to believe, just because I talk about God.
The hope of any borne again Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, is that in telling people about Christ, the Holy Spirit will use their willingness to say something that sounds foolish and use it to convince an unbeliever.
Actually, it happens all the time, even to the most staunch, unbelieving, big brained intellectuals are suddenly changed.
It's a miracle!

If ya don't believe me...
just ask me
Gypsy Priest

Answer 4

Do you accept that proof though?
And how much proof, exactly, do you need?
Do we then suggest, that this is subjective evidence and therefore void? Even eye-witness testimony is taken as evidence in court, and if I showed you a newspaper article written by an atheist attesting to the sun careening out of orbit in Fatima Portugal in 1918, would you then believe? Because that article exists. Or what about the water that sprang up out of the ground when St Bernadette of Lourdes was talking to a rock? (Or so it seemed to everyone else there). The spring still exists. You could even go visit there.

There are many many proofs, but you reject them, so where are we then after that? You won't change because you DON'T WANT TO.

Answer 5

I agree with you, but the problem is that in general the atheists and christians on here are arguing from completely different premises, completely different worldviews, even completely different objectives. I'm not sure it's a fruitful argument, frankly.

That said, I found this quote about the Buddha's teachings "enlightening": His teaching "was bound up with the essential structure of existence, inherent in the condition of life itself. It had objective reality not because it could be demonstrated by logical proof but because anybody who seriously tried to live that way would find that it worked. Effectiveness rather than philosophical or historical demonstration has always been the hallmark of successful religion." Karen Armstrong, A History of God

Not just different premises, but completely different approaches.

Peace to you.

Answer 6

A true Christian understands better than anybody else as to what's the real meaning and implications of 'Burden of proof.'All his life he keeps waiting for it and till the end,he still expects some miracle but dies with a heavy burden on his heart of the 'BURDEN BUT MINUS PROOF'.

Answer 7

"Burden of Proof" only applies in formal debates to determine points.

In the real world, anyone trying to convince someone else that his position makes more sense, has a burden of proof.

Answer 8

If I dont care if you believe in a God or not, why do I have to prove it to you?

Do you understand that someone could have had proof provided to them but dont have the ability to prove it to another person? If someone tells me a secret and I know for a fact they werent lying and that person dies and I am the only one that knows that secret, does just the fact that I cant prove that secret to you mean that the secret isnt true or that I didnt have enough proof provided to me to know for a fact it is true?

I cant prove God to you. I dont care if you believe. You cant prove that I never received proof of God. Do you really care if I believe it or not? If you care that I believe in God then you need to prove to me that he doesnt exist.

Answer 9

Do atheists understand what Hasty Generalization means?
This Christian is always quick to point out the meaning of 'burden of proof' whenever I see the opportunity. So yes, Christians do understand what burden of proof means.

Answer 10

No.

Neither Christians nor atheists can provide proof for their hypotheses. Both are candidates for being wrong, and both could be right.

This seems to go for all religions I've met: mormonism, atheism, christianity, buddhism, islam... they all fail to prove things. But that's why they're called "faiths!"