The burden of proof is important in a debate. Is there a debate?

Question

In the on-going arguments between believers and nonbelievers, the nonbelievers consistently bring up the issue of burden of proof, e.g. "prove that your God exists" or "there is no more proof of your God than there is of Santa".

But D.T. Niles defined evangelism as “ just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.” There is no debate here. If the other person doesn't want the bread, then no amount of argument will suffice.

The debate that might concern the question of burden of proof will properly be taken up by our Creator if He exists. Are unbelievers really just developing a defense strategy just in case they come face to face with their Creator the day they die?

The famous atheist Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he came face to face with God after he died. I thought Russell would just blow off the question but he surprised me when he said that he would, in effect, accuse God of not providing enough evidence of His existence. Russell had his defense strategy all laid out. Russell was getting ready to debate his Creator. I wonder how the debate went.

Abiogeek: "...liklihood that god does exist is low."
Low (I have no idea how one calculates such a probability) but not zero. What is the benefit or detriment of seeking your Creator?

Lionheart. Sounds to me like you're preparing a defense. How do you think your Creator will respond (assuming He exists)?

"I am a free person. I worship no one."
That indeed is the benefit of rejecting God. It is impossible to be the master of my fate and captain of my soul unless I reject God's authority over me.

"If you believe in the supernatural as being possible then you accept all OTHER Gods as possible."
The only god that we would logically have to answer to is our Creator by whatever name we choose to give Him. A Creator gives purpose for His creation and the question concerns whether we willfully rejected the Giver of purpose.

"What gets you through the day a good person, is ALL that matters."

If we are created, then, by definition, our Creator is the source of purpose for which we were created. I'm hearing that being a good person is your purpose. Either that purpose is from your Creator or it is a self delusion. I presume you don't think it is delusion. So if it is from your Creator will He not ask you why you didn't seek Him?

Answer 1

In response to your last sentence, no. There's no reason to develop a strategy to deal with something that doesn't exist. If there were proof, or even good evidence, that a god exists, there probably would be no atheists. In the absence of proof, or even good evidence, the default position is that gods don't exist. The same is true of unicorns, rabbits that chew cud, bats that are birds, talking donkeys and snakes, etc.

If you're unwilling or unable to justify your position using logic and reason, perhaps you shouldn't debate with atheists.

Atheism in not based on fear, nor is it effected by it.
.

Answer 2

Why would we have to "face" anything after we die? Why do you think the stigma has stuck that in the afterlife we would have to answer to some grand being? The fact of the matter is, I don't think that there will be such questions, I don't think there will be such a "human" face off with something bigger and grander than ourselves.
We are so ingrained and infiltrated with the story of the bible (FEAR given to MEN by MEN) It's a story, and NO ONE has ever come back from the dead to tell their tale of how they went and spoke with god.. And until that happens we all walk around blindly until we die.
I say blindly, because we believe what we want, we make our own decisions on how to live our life, If we use, God, Ala, Spirituality.. Or anything else... What gets you through the day a good person, is ALL that matters.

Answer 3

I've seen a lot of this silly reasoning by Christians. The burden of proof always lies with the person making a statement. People over the years have given proof that the truths in the bible are just stories that are physically impossible to be true. What have believers done? They make up all kinds of reasons why the bible has to be true, without any kind of proof. Non-believers use reason and science to learn all about the world and put religion in the fairy tale category.

Edit: No defense necessary. Russell was a great philosopher who expressed, so eloquently, exactly what I was coming to believe in the late 1950's. I have come past that point. There is so much evidence that the universe and life have come about naturally that we should be able to put all religions in the fiction category.

I am a free person. I worship no one. Freedom, practice it.

Answer 4

The argument is simple. Look, God exists or doesn't. Period. I argue he doesn't. I defend this argument by actually looking at the world around me using the fact that GOD has never left any physical evidence of his existence. You CAN NOT provide any evidence to me to the contrary of that position. If there is evidence, AT ALL, what would you have me believe??? If I told you the sky is not red? What would you're argument be in defense of the position that it is? That god says in the bible the sky is not red, OR would you just look up at the sky and come to the conclusion that the sky is indeed not red, but blue? In the absence of evidence, there is no argument. You quite simply are defending a position based on faith. An idea that is not testable, or proveable in any manner. It's much more difficult to defend my position, because I must obey the rules of science. Rules that are clearly defined, and examinable. You can sit back, find gaps in the knowledge and point our weaknesses, meanwhile, your position has no gaps, because it has no knowledge base to begin with. So you see, this is exactly why an intelligent debate between scientists, and religious zealots is not worthy of the effort for the scientist. The position that the zealot is defending, by not playing by the rules of evidence and testability, are in fact not science so to attempt to debate it's merit scientifically is impossible. The question of whether or not god exist is unanswerable, you can't say it exist, I can't say he doesn't, though I am in the position that based upon the lack of evidence that exist, the liklihood that god does exist is low.

Answer 5

Ha ha good question. No argument men can think up can justify them before the living God who will judge all according tho their works, except those who are washed by the blood of the Lamb Jesus Christ. You are correct that if the beggar doesn't want the bread that's his choice, but man, at times i wish I could convince a few beggars that they really need that bread. God bless you.

Answer 6

To your last question ... No.
One beggar telling another one where there is bread is certainly attempting to help his fellow man but he is NOT threatening him with eternal torture if the offered bread is refused. The simile is invalid.

Answer 7

You cannot argue the intangible. But you can reduce pretty much every idea in the Bible to, "I don't know. It must be because God is so wise that this makes no sense."

Answer 8

a lots.

Answer 9

He does.