Atheist claim “The burden of proof is on those who believe in God. Atheists don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist; believers have to prove he does.” Yet this also misunderstands the nature of a burdan of proof. The concept is borrowed from civil law, where it refers to the obligation a party must provide sufficient evidence for a claim or lose his case. U.S. law establishes a presumption of innocence, according to which a prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty of an offense or the accused will be acquitted and be legally treated as innocent. The presumption of innocence is a choice our society has made to favor the accused, lest prosecutors use the power of the state to falsely convict large numbers of innocent people and bring about a reign of terror.

However, the burden of proof works differently in other settings, such as philosophical or religious discussions. From a logical point of view, it does not matter whether one is arguing for a proposition (P) or for its denial (not-P). In the absence of evidence, neither is more probable than the other. Consequently, as long as things remain in the abstract, nobody has a burden of proof.

The burden is created when one person begins asserting either P or not-P. If he wants to convince a person of a proposition or its denial, then he needs to offer that person reasons why. The philosophical burden of proof thus does not intrinsically fall on either party. It is something that you assume when you try to convince someone else of a position.

All of this applies to situations where one is making a claim about whether something exists. Until you consider the evidence, neither the proposition “X exists” nor the proposition “X does not exist” can be deemed more probable than the other, and it doesn’t matter what X is. As long as you have no evidence favoring the existence or non-existence of X, both propositions are equally probable.

Thus if a theist wants to convince a non-theist that God exists, he needs to provide arguments for his position, and if an atheist wishes to convince a non-atheist that God does not exist, he similarly needs to offer arguments for his position. The burden of proof is assumed by whoever.

-Jimmy Akin
A Daily Defense: (Kindle Locations 1756-1775).






Atheists want evidence supplied before they believe in God and this according to their statements must be unequivocal evidence. Atheists demand the evidence be as extraordinary nature as the claim made. Atheist idea of evidence is something that is irrefutable. Nothing Christians have supplied as a proof of God has fulfilled the criteria for proof developed by atheists. Atheists believe this is proof God does not exist.

What is evidence? If the atheist idea of evidence seems designed to eliminate all evidence in support of God's existence what defines or constitutes evidence in a more objective sense? What condition ought a piece of evidence fulfill?

Atheists or secularists will say evidence has five qualities. Evidence is something that is Observable, Measurable, Falsifiable, Repeatable and Predictive. Evidence is thus demonstrated to be of a mechanical nature.

Observable phenomena require the physical senses. Logic and reason are disqualified from providing evidence.

·                    A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 000 + 2 000 = 5 000), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3]

·                    A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge.



My claim is any statement made contrary to all available evidence can be attributed to an unfamilierity with reality as most people understand it.





ert Burk I am not talking about empricism, remember the thread is about what we think evidence is. Everything is evidence and everything is not it depends on how it fits in. Gods existence does not fit in with the atheist belief system so they reject that and the see the world as material as this is obligatory under the limitations in which they function intellectually. An evidence of God for them would be a wooden statue that could do miracles. They posit existence came from a Big Bang but what can one deduce from this, is there a moral system one can derive from BB, is there an economics, can we understand conciousness from BB etc etc etc, So BB is what I call a regressive theory it makes more problems and more divisions than it solves.


believe the only evidence is that a proposition or statement is consistent with a body of similar propositions and that ultimate truth is the body of propositions that is the most consistent and covers the most conditions or environments. WHen a theory does not fit in with other theories, that is it is a stand alone theory its validity is in doubt.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Robert Burk John Powell Well for example Newtons theory covered earth gravity but Einsteins covered a broader set of conditions or environments. Physics deals with matter but has nothing to say about economics. Two different environments.




k Striving for consistency of thought and argument creates a standard of evidence in that if your theory or fact contradicts a substantial body of arguments which are consistent and your so-called fact is incompatible with the main body it has to be rejected as a regressive proposition.