Where does the burden of proof lie in a religious discussion?

Question

I was talking with my christian friends about the existence/relevance of God and they attacked my reasoning but hardly gave any substance beyond faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Answer 1

Why proof. You either have Him or not.

Answer 2

I find when people try to convince themselves/others of what they think they are supposed to believe they are the most closed minded. There is no burden of proof because there is no debate, at least not when the subject is as intangible as religion. No one knows (they might think they do) anything about what exists for any living thing beyond life, so with this in mind an attack during a religious debate is what happens when the attackers have nothing solid to base their own thoughts on.

Answer 3

Well, I would hardly call an attack like that a discussion. The burden, in a discussion, would be on both sides. Both sides discussing their points, in a reasonable manner. As for the relevance of "God" would solely depend on the individual and their concept of it. Someone who used drugs to the point of starving their own family, losing their home, cars, etc... who found "God" and cleaned themselves up and lived a happy, healthy life afterwards... this would be relevant... though I wouldn't say it is evidence of any particular deity, but it is very relevant to that individual. When one engages directly in a religious discussion for the simple fact of Discussion (not to corner other people in order to try to get them to agree or to argue), it's not a matter of "Burden of Proof". Now if I knock on your door at 7am on a Sunday morning and try to make you read Pagan Pamphlets as to why my Gods/Goddess' are real and everyone else's isn't... then the Burden falls on me. But not when a person willingly comes into a forum set up for religious discussion... then it's a give and take situation.



I don't understand why people attack others over whether or not they believe in a God (or whatever you wish to call it). It only ends up in a circular argument and neither side benefits from it.

Answer 4

Speaking for myself, the 'proof' would depend on whether or not what I claim comes true, or is true, or was true. According to the bible all three ( was, is, shall be) must be true, to qualify as 'truth'. According to myself, I tend to agree with what the bible says, based on my personal experiences, although attempting to extrapolate and predict the future can be risky, and embarrassing when the predictions fail. Attempting to explain the stories of the bible can also be an exercise in futility, when not enough conclusive evidence exists, or not enough has been discovered, to satisfy the hard-to-convince skeptics. How much evidence does that require? For some, there can never be enough. For others, little or none.

If I were to pray for a 'wake-up call' for America, in the presence of witnesses, and within one week '911' took place (God forbid), what would people think? Would that be 'proof' enough, or would it be dismissed as blind luck?

What if I were to pray for rain to last a week in Denver, Colorado? Would that happen three days from now

( on Aug 1, 2007), because I said so? (Now, we'll have to wait and see, won't we?...And if that happens, I won't be available for questioning, I'll be hiding somewhere safe, away from Y/A lol)

The burden of proof lies ultimately with God, and His designated Spokesman, and no one else.

He does what He does, and He is what He is. Keep watching, that's all I can say about Him.

Answer 5

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. That's true in a court of law and true in religious discussion. If you say God is real, and I don't believe you, its up to you to convince me. If people though the other way around, everyone would be guilty until proven innocent and could assert anything to be true just I say so.

Answer 6

There is no burden of proof, faith is not about proof.

When the Lord Jesus asked Peter "who do you say I am"?

Peter answered you are the Son of the Living God.

Jesus replied "on this I will built my Church".

Jesus was referring to Peters faith.

The substance of a persons faith is in how they live their lives for God each day.

Religious discussions are often about different theologies, rather than about a believers personal faith.

Answer 7

You're confusing discussion with debate. In a debate, there are no predetermined positions. Each side makes the best argument it can. In a religious discussion, the object is for everyone to agree. You apparently weren't cooperating.

Answer 8

Burden of proof lies with the positive claim. You cannot prove that something does not exist.

Answer 9

With the one making the positive claim, i.e. if I say X exists, then I must bear the burden of proof.

Answer 10

Think of the amazing number of supernatural beliefs held by people:



Gods, goddesses, devils, demons, angels, heavens, hells, purgatories, limbos, miracles, prophecies, visions, auras, saviors, virgin births, immaculate conceptions, resurrections, bodily ascensions, faith-healings, exorcisms, salvation, redemption, messages from the dead, voices from Atlantis, omens, magic, clairvoyance, spirit-signals, divine visitations, incarnations, reincarnations, second comings, judgment days, astrology horoscopes, psychic phenomena, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, voodoo, fairies, leprechauns, werewolves, vampires, zombies, witches, warlocks, ghosts, wraiths, poltergeists, dopplegangers, incubi, succubi, palmistry, tarot cards, ouija boards, levitation, out-of-body travel, magical transport to UFOs, Elvis on a flying saucer, invisible Lemurians in Mount Shasta, Thetans from a dying planet, etc., etc.



That's about 60 varieties - and you can probably think of others I overlooked.



All these magical beliefs are basically alike. There's no tangible evidence for any of them. You can't test supernatural claims; you're expected to swallow them by blind faith. The only "proof" for them is that they were "revealed" by some prophet, guru, astrologer, shaman, mullah, mystic, swami, psychic, soothsayer or "channeler."

Answer 11

The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive assertion, so it is the theist's burden when they say that God exists.

Answer 12

An extraordinary claim (such as a supernatural God) requires extraordinary proof.

Answer 13

Both parties often take the burden of proof on themselves even though Christianity is about faith.

Answer 14

The onus is on the religious folk over the atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Answer 15

The burden of proof always lies with the one who questions an established belief. Your hypothesis must either add to the belief, or unilaterally disprove it altogether.



Since it was you who questioned their established belief, the burden of proof lies with you. It was up to you to disprove their belief.



It is, however, impossible to debate without common ground to stand upon.

Answer 16

The burden of proof lies with ANYone making a claim.



"God exists!" Burden of proof lies with them.

"God does NOT exist!" Burden of proof lies with them.



If you're going to make an absolutist claim... the burden of proof lies with you.

Answer 17

on the person making the positive claim.



i.e., the person claiming god exists.

Answer 18

the christians have to prove the god is real the atheists no one hundred percent it is man made and not real the christian god is to scared to show its self to the planet because it is not real

Answer 19

if your 'so called friends' question you on your belief and if they don't believe, then question yourself as to why you have to ask this question....

Answer 20

Anyone who asks me to have blind faith isn't proving anything.

Answer 21

On any person who does not provide evidence.

Answer 22

no need for proof for them

Answer 23

Why should anyone have to prove anything?



What does it matter? Live and let live.

Let it be.