Who bears the burden of proof?

[Strength & Honor]

In the epic struggle to answer the ultimate question, "Does God exist?" who has the ultimate responsibility to provide the proof?

Does it fall to the theist to provide evidence for the existence of God?

Or;

Does it fall to the atheist to provide evidence that God does not exist?

Does it matter? Are these questions even helpful in answering the question?

 

[ninerbuff]

Burden of proof is with the person who makes a statement about something being true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the epic struggle to answer the ultimate question, "Does God exist?" who has the ultimate responsibility to provide the proof?

Does it fall to the theist to provide evidence for the existence of God?

Or;

Does it fall to the atheist to provide evidence that God does not exist?

Does it matter? Are these questions even helpful in answering the question?

Philosophically, I think the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. This might be the theist saying "God exists"; it might also be the athest saying "God does not exist". It doesn't fall on an atheist who simply says "I don't accept your arguments for God".

However, in practical terms, I think the burden of proof falls on whoever's trying to change someone else's mind.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If there was proof that god existed, there wouldn't be any question regarding its existence. The question of proof is moot.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the epic struggle to answer the ultimate question, "Does God exist?" who has the ultimate responsibility to provide the proof?

Does it fall to the theist to provide evidence for the existence of God?

Certainly. After all, it is he who claims that it makes some difference whether he does exists or not.

Does it fall to the atheist to provide evidence that God does not exist?

No, for many good reasons. Ranging from the logical impossibility of truly disproving the existence of anything to the lack of a clear definition of god.

Does it matter? Are these questions even helpful in answering the question?

Actually, no, it doesn't really matter. Belief in God is in fact of very little importance in and of itself.

 

[Smoke]

If there was proof that god existed, there wouldn't be any question regarding its existence. The question of proof is moot.

Well, exactly.

I don't think any theist is obligated to prove to me that God exists, but in the absence of any evidence that he exists, they can't reasonably expect me to care what they believe he says.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, for many good reasons. Ranging from the logical impossibility of truly disproving the existence of anything to the lack of a clear definition of god.

Also, there are multiple conflicting God-claims. If we had to accept them all as true (and not just all the ones that people have come up with, but all the potential ones that nobody's thought of, too), then we'd be in an untenable position.

You can't even start with some sort of unspecific "generic god", because even the vaguest god-concept goes against somebody's god-concept somewhere.

 

[Eliot Wild]

The burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the respondent. However, I tend to agree with Kilgore Trout and LuisDante. First of all, if there were proof available that God in fact existed, I'm betting somebody would have already stepped forward to tender it for our consideration. Of course, I'm waiting for the reality TV show concept this sort of idea might spark: "Who Wants to be the First Person to Prove God Exists?"

But also, as LuisDante says, I don't think it really matters. I was raised to the Christian faith but now find myself stuck within agnostic Never-Never-Land. Ehhh, there doesn't really seem to be a whole helluva lot practical difference between the two.

 

[MW0082]

I would suppose it is the one trying to prove/disprove something. However it also can depend on the circumstances. I don't think the burden lies with those who ask for proof of God's existence. As oppose to what has fewer calories, or what racer is faster. God is a concept that IMHO needs some evidence for such a giant claim....

 

[Skwim]

The burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the respondent. However, I tend to agree with Kilgore Trout and LuisDante. First of all, if there were proof available that God in fact existed, I'm betting somebody would have already stepped forward to tender it for our consideration.

Proof! Hell, decent evidence would be a big step forward.

 

[Strength & Honor]

It doesn't fall on an atheist who simply says "I don't accept your arguments for God".

Perhaps I’m being technical here, but I disagree. Here’s why:

Most atheists say that there is no God because there is a lack of evidence demonstrating his existence. However, this position, to me, seems more indicative of agnosticism, not atheism. Just because there is no evidence, does not mean he in fact does not exist. It merely shows that, at that point in the debate, it has not been established if he exists or not. Therefore, In order to claim that God truly does not exist, the atheist must go one step further, showing positive proof and/or evidence why he does not exist. The way I see it, in order for someone to truly be an atheist, they have to have good reasons for that belief - reasons that go beyond the simple claim that there is no evidence of God’s existence. Otherwise, the conclusion is technically that God's existence simply has not been proven, which amounts to agnosticism. Of course, I’m open to arguments against that, but that’s just how it seems to me on the surface.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps I’m being technical here, but I disagree. Here’s why:

Most atheists say that there is no God because there is a lack of evidence demonstrating his existence. However, this position, to me, seems more indicative of agnosticism, not atheism.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief.

Just because there is no evidence, does not mean he in fact does not exist. It merely shows that, at that point in the debate, it has not been established if he exists or not. Therefore, In order to claim that God truly does not exist, the atheist must go one step further, showing positive proof and/or evidence why he does not exist.

Yes, if the atheist wants to make that claim. However, a person doesn't have to make that claim to be atheist.

The way I see it, in order for someone to truly be an atheist, they have to have good reasons for that belief - reasons that go beyond the simple claim that there is no evidence of God’s existence. Otherwise, the conclusion is technically that God's existence simply has not been proven, which amounts to agnosticism. Of course, I’m open to arguments against that, but that’s just how it seems to me on the surface.

It allows for atheism as well. Here's how it works:

Q: Do you believe in any gods?

A: yes - you're a theist/deist of some sort.
A: no - you're an atheist.

That's it.

Of course, people will have all sorts of reasons for why they believe or not, but when it comes right down to it, that's the deciding factor.

BTW - note that in this arrangement, every agnostic will also be either a theist ("I believe in God even though I can't be sure he exists") or an atheist ("I don't believe in any gods even though their non-existence can't be proven with absolute certainty").

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps I’m being technical here, but I disagree.

Perhaps you're not being technical enough. Atheism can be either position "I don't believe god exists," or "I believe god doesn't exist." Like many, you are under the mistaken impression that only the second one describes atheists.

Also, many atheists are also agnostic. One describes belief, one describes knowledge - they are not mutually exclusive - and, in fact, from a purely rational point-of-view, being both an atheist and agnostic, is the most rationally sound position.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think the words "evidence" and "proof" being used by commenters in this thread are very poorly defined. It's ridiculous in the extreme to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You might reasonably say that the evidence isn't coercive, or not good enough for you, or not beyond doubt. But you can't reasonably say there is "no" evidence. Consider a court case where the defendant is declared not guilty by a jury. Was there therefore no evidence presented against the accused? Yes, there was, but the evidence did not satsify a certain threshold to deliver a verdict of guilty. What is true in a courtroom is also true in less formal debates about what's what.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think the words "evidence" and "proof" being used by commenters in this thread are very poorly defined. It's ridiculous in the extreme to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You might reasonably say that the evidence isn't coercive, or not good enough for you, or not beyond doubt. But you can't reasonably say there is "no" evidence. Consider a court case where the defendant is declared not guilty by a jury. Was there therefore no evidence presented against the accused? Yes, there was, but the evidence did not satsify a certain threshold to deliver a verdict of guilty. What is true in a courtroom is also true in less formal debates about what's what.

Sorry, we all get to decide for ourselves what constitutes evidence on this one. I have seen zero evidence for the existence of any god in my life. I have seen what others define as evidence for them, but I tend to have different standards of evidence than those people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the words "evidence" and "proof" being used by commenters in this thread are very poorly defined. It's ridiculous in the extreme to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You might reasonably say that the evidence isn't coercive, or not good enough for you, or not beyond doubt. But you can't reasonably say there is "no" evidence. Consider a court case where the defendant is declared not guilty by a jury. Was there therefore no evidence presented against the accused? Yes, there was, but the evidence did not satsify a certain threshold to deliver a verdict of guilty. What is true in a courtroom is also true in less formal debates about what's what.

I don't think there's proof of god(s), but I do think there's evidence of god(s) in the way that you suggest. I agree that, for instance, stories of healings at Lourdes are evidence for the Christian God, and that accounts of Ganesh statues drinking milk are evidence for the Hindu pantheon. However, while I do acknowledge that they're evidence, I personally think that they're rather poor-quality evidence that's outweighed by evidence against the claims they support.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, we all get to decide for ourselves what constitutes evidence on this one. I have seen zero evidence for the existence of any god in my life. I have seen what others define as evidence for them, but I tend to have different standards of evidence than those people.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Smoke]

Perhaps I’m being technical here, but I disagree. Here’s why:

Most atheists say that there is no God because there is a lack of evidence demonstrating his existence. However, this position, to me, seems more indicative of agnosticism, not atheism. Just because there is no evidence, does not mean he in fact does not exist.

Put it this way: I don't claim that the existence of God has been disproven, but in the absence of any evidence I think the reasonable presumption is against his existence. It's conceivable that God exists, just as it's conceivable that Santa Claus and flying reindeer exist. But the likelihood of it doesn't seem very great.

 

[Smoke]

It's ridiculous in the extreme to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

Here we go again with the imaginary instigation of the Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that can be presented, and evidence that cannot be presented isn't really evidence.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think there's proof of god(s), but I do think there's evidence of god(s) in the way that you suggest. I agree that, for instance, stories of healings at Lourdes are evidence for the Christian God, and that accounts of Ganesh statues drinking milk are evidence for the Hindu pantheon. However, while I do acknowledge that they're evidence, I personally think that they're rather poor-quality evidence that's outweighed by evidence against the claims they support.

Okay, if you put it that way, I'll have to say that I don't find the kind of "evidence" for gods any more persuasive than the "spectral evidence" offered at the Salem Witchcraft trials.

I can see how one might think there's evidence for God is one is extremely undiscriminating about what one accepts as evidence.