The Burden of Proof

[The_Evelyonian]

In the debate over the existence/non-existence of god(s), who do you think should have the burden of proof and why?

 

[Storm]

It defaults to neither side.

If any individual makes positive claim, they take up the BoP.

 

[punkdbass]

Good question. I think both have the burden of proof as I will describe:

If there is no God, then I want good, solid evidence that the universe, and everything that came before it, is perfectly sustainable without a Creator. But not only that, I want good evidence/arguments showing that it is more probable and logical for there to not be a Creator. Right now the biggest things I'm having trouble understanding from an atheist point of view - is how an infinite past is possible, or how natural laws and order came to be.

And theists need to show people why it is rational to believe in God.

I am a firm believer that God can't really be proven or disproven though. No matter how much scientific advancements we make, there will always be a God-concept that works, and no matter how many arguments we make for the existance of God, there will always be a counter argument. Which is why I think ultimately people just need to experience life and the world around them and decide based on their experiences whether or not a higher power exists, rather than try and use reason and logic to come to God.

 

[9Westy9]

It defaults to neither side.

If any individual makes positive claim, they take up the BoP.

This.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted the believer,i think that if you preach that something is true you should be able to prove it so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It defaults to neither side.

If any individual makes positive claim, they take up the BoP.

Exactly.

 

[ChristineES]

I said neither. Believing is all about faith- and no one should have to prove his or her faith or lack of faith.

 

[freethinker44]

I said both because I think the conversation dictates who is making the claim. Whoever challenges a claim needs to support their side.

 

[Tbone]

In the debate over the existence/non-existence of god(s), who do you think should have the burden of proof and why?

Since there is no evidence for there not being a god, I don't see how you can place the burden of proof on a nonbeliever.

 

[sojourner]

Neither. It's not a matter of proof.

 

[Willamena]

The burden of proof rides the positive statement.

 

[YmirGF]

It defaults to neither side.

If any individual makes positive claim, they take up the BoP.

Exactly. Definitive statements require one to back them up.

The burden of proof rides the positive statement.

Giddy-up.

 

[HerDotness]

It defaults to neither side.

If any individual makes positive claim, they take up the BoP.

Precisely. No further quibbling about who does, who doesn't required.

And the proof does not involve, "Well, it's true because I said so repeatedly" or "It's OBVIOUS!"

 

[Valjean]

The default position is non-belief. It falls to him who asserts a positive claim to provide evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all have our opinions, & don't gotta prove nuthin.

 

[Storm]

The default position is non-belief. It falls to him who asserts a positive claim to provide evidence.

That's not what positive claim means in this context. And there is no "default position."

 

[Valjean]

One either believes everything until something's somehow disproved, or believes nothing till evidence of various things comes to light.
Which approach is a reasonable default position, Storm? Is there some other epistemic approach I haven't considered?

 

[Storm]

One either believes everything until something's somehow disproved, or believes nothing till evidence of various things comes to light.
Which approach is a reasonable default position, Storm? Is there some other epistemic approach I haven't considered?

What's the point of asking me what the default position is when I just rejected its existence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It amazes me that so many find this so difficult to understand.

 

[Penumbra]

In the debate over the existence/non-existence of god(s), who do you think should have the burden of proof and why?

I didn't vote, because it depends on the specific positive claim.

I'd say the natural position on any given thing is one of not knowing about it or lack of belief, so anything that specifies, adds something to, or increases the complexity of, a given explanation or system, requires justification.

But I can't vote "believer", or even "both" or "neither", because it depends on the specific claim. "God exists" is different than "I believe in god", since the former is a positive argument. "There aren't any gods" is different than "I don't see any good reason to believe in any gods", since the former is a positive argument.