Burden of Proof

[he beholds]

I know what burden of proof means, but I want to know why it is always on the person who says that there is a God, rather than on the person who says that there isn't. Can anyone help me? If an atheist asks me why I believe in God, I am happy to give a defense. However, I just don't agree that the burden is on me any more than on him--sometimes I think it is even more on him, if he is the one igniting the conversation. Is there any way that I am right--or are the rules of argumentation set in stone?

 

[MW]

I am always happy to accept burden of proof. However, the first point I seek to establish is that I could offer no proof of any truth (i.e., what is true in all places, at all times, and under all conditions) unless an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Being existed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I've found that in actual practice, in any subject, the burden of proof lies (or at least supposedly lies) with the person that was too slow to be the first to say something analogous to, "prove it!"

This is why when I talk with wannabe atheist apologists, I'll play that card quickly. It puts them on the defensive because now they're in what is for them the unfamiliar territory of actually having to think about and demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

 

[he beholds]

I just did some googling, and I've found the logical fallacy "appeal to ignorance," which deals with burden of proof.

A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.

Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.

B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

So calling someone out on proof is not always a logical, but perhaps a practical request?

 

[Caroline]

I always point out to atheists that there is nothing that they can establish with the level of proof they demand and within the next few minutes.

For example, I believe I am posting to the Puritanboard, a board of Reformed Christian people. However, it is theoretically possible that this is an elaborate hoax run by one person posting under dozens of aliases. I can't PROVE that is not the case if someone were to demand that of me--and certainly not within the next ten minutes. All that I can say is that, given the evidence, that is UNLIKELY. But if I were really paranoid, there may not be much you could say to convince me. One of the mods could say, "Well, you can call my church and my pastor will tell you that I really exist." And I could say, "But how do I know that he is telling the truth? Maybe the phone is being routed to the evil genius that is trying to deceive me."

I'm not that paranoid, and I do believe that the board exists, but the point here is that if someone doesn't want to believe something, you can't prove anything to their satisfaction. When someone even raises the question of the 'burden of proof', that already tells me that it's not really an honest inquiry. An honestly interested person who is honestly evaluating a possibillity is not particularly concerned with whose responsibility it is to 'prove' something to him but rather the information itself.

 

[Philip]

I would say that we do have the burden of proof because we are affirming something where the atheist is merely negating. Because proving a negative is nearly impossible, we assume it until we have reason to believe the positive, because that is much easier to prove.

Example:

Proposition: there is gold in Rhode Island.

Why the affirmative has the burden of proof is that he/she has to find only one instance of gold in Rhode Island. The negative then has to argue against the affirmative's argument.

The only situation for God's existence where the atheist has burden of proof would be in an argument for God's non-existence. In this case, the atheist is affirming by means of positive argument a universal negative, which puts the apologist in the role of critic.

 

[Marrow Man]

There are certain things which are, philosophically speaking, properly basic. They cannot be "proven" (as one normally thinks of proofs), but are foundational to any sort of rational thinking. Herman Bavinck describes it this way:

There is not a single thing whose existence is certain to us only on the basis of proofs. We are fully convinced – prior to any argumentation – of our own existence, the existence of the world around us, the laws of logic and morality, simply as a result of the indelible impressions all these things make on our consciousness. We accept that existence – without constraint or coercion – spontaneously and instinctively. And the same is true of God’s existence.

 

[Caroline]

I would say that we do have the burden of proof because we are affirming something where the atheist is merely negating. Because proving a negative is nearly impossible, we assume it until we have reason to believe the positive, because that is much easier to prove.

Example:

Proposition: there is gold in Rhode Island.

Why the affirmative has the burden of proof is that he/she has to find only one instance of gold in Rhode Island. The negative then has to argue against the affirmative's argument.

The only situation for God's existence where the atheist has burden of proof would be in an argument for God's non-existence. In this case, the atheist is affirming by means of positive argument a universal negative, which puts the apologist in the role of critic.

That's true, but even then, only a great fool would say, "I will not believe there is gold in Rhode Island unless any and every citizen of Rhode Island can prove that to me beyond any doubt at any moment that I happen to approach them."

And there would have to be some willingness to accept a proponderance of evidence. What is the level of proof adequate to accept that there is gold in Rhode Island? The word of an expert? Eyewitness testimony? Chemical analysis of a sample? Or does the person asking have to find it in their own Rhode Island backyard?

All I'm saying is that things are never quite as easily proven as we would like. There has to be an agreed standard of 'proof' or someone can raise objections until we are all dead.

 

[Scott1]

It's helpful to just focus on God's Word and the Holy Spirit to help. Quote and explain Scripture to them and then trust that their reaction, denial, anger, confusion, inability to understand, etc. will be used by God in some way in their lives.

 

[ClayPot]

He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof! Greg Koukl's Tactics in Defending the Faith is very helpful in this regard.

 

[he beholds]

I would say that we do have the burden of proof because we are affirming something where the atheist is merely negating. Because proving a negative is nearly impossible, we assume it until we have reason to believe the positive, because that is much easier to prove.

Example:

Proposition: there is gold in Rhode Island.

Why the affirmative has the burden of proof is that he/she has to find only one instance of gold in Rhode Island. The negative then has to argue against the affirmative's argument.

The only situation for God's existence where the atheist has burden of proof would be in an argument for God's non-existence. In this case, the atheist is affirming by means of positive argument a universal negative, which puts the apologist in the role of critic.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think that someone has to say out loud, "God does not exist," for him to mean just that. In situations where atheists ask you, "How can you believe in God?" they are implying that there is no God to believe in. You answer them, but then they turn it on you with, "Well, the burden of proof is on you." So then you are now the one on the defensive. (Or that is how the arguer would like it.) I just have a hard time finding this to be a genuine or fair exchange. I am trying to determine if I have a logical reason to disagree with "burden of proof," or that is simply my preference because I cannot "prove" God in a satisfactory way to a person whose heart is hardened.

 

[Philip]

I think that a good tactic here would be to ask what proof they would accept. I once heard this question asked of an atheist (a "friendly atheist") who replied that if Christians acted like Christians it would go a long way toward proving the existence of God.

In other words, the greatest argument against atheism is how we live our lives, loving our neighbors as ourselves.

In debate, though, it does need to be remembered that once you have made your case, it is the atheist's burden to critique what proof you have given. Yes, you are on the defensive the whole time, but that's what apologetics is: the defense of the faith. We are supposed to give a reason for the hope that is within us--not the atheist.