Debating An Atheist: The Burden of Proof
July 22, 2010 by Lisa Krempasky
Filed under faith
One of the favorite tactics of atheists is to say their is no evidence of God. Of course we know there is a wealth of evidence that they refuse to acknowledge but those proofs will be dealt with at a later time. Let’s start a step earlier.
Why must the burden of proof be on believers to prove the existence of God? The burden of proof comes from presumptions. In criminal law a person is innocent until proven guilty. Why is the presumption that there is no God? There is no logical reason why that should be. It is equally as logical to start from the presumption that there is a God and force the atheist to prove there is not.
You cannot accept their premise. If an atheist is intellectually honest at all they must at least start from the premise that we do not know whether there is a God or not and argue each side from there, but to accept their false premise plays into their step upon step of illogical house of cards.
Carl Sagan a world famous scientist and religious skeptic said the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. He spoke of our impatience with ambiguity. For example the newest discovered star existed before it was discovered. Gravity existed before it was discovered. The western hemisphere existed before it was discovered. Further there IS a cure for cancer. People have been searching for it for millennia and the fact we have not yet found it does not mean it doesn’t exist.
But of course there IS plenty of evidence of the existence of God, just don’t accept the logic of the atheist.
Related posts:
You’re so right! I’ve been telling people I believe in the invisible unicorn and they look at me as if I’m mad. Not one offered proof the it does not exist. In fact, they all know what I am talking about. Isn’t that proof that the invisible unicorn is out there?… maybe right here! Everywhere!
If you want to believe in the invisible unicorn you that is fine. It may even exist. But again you prove my point. You are not being intellectually honest because let’s be real…you do NOT believe in the invisible unicorn.
You tell me WHY I must prove the existence of God while you get a free pass on your presumption. Also tell me your evidence for the absence of God.
The reason the atheist must start from a presumption of no God is because anyone who takes an intellectually honest look at the atheist position knows that it cannot be true. So instead the atheist starts from the position that their proof (that which they true to prove) is true. That does not cut the mustard and is very illogical.
Thought experiment.
Let’s say someone honestly, truly believed in the invisible unicorn, for whatever reason, With as much conviction as you do in your god.
And moreover, they were to somehow convince a *lot* of followers that this was the deity of choice.
Now picture the followers constantly hammering you with their belief system, saying what an unworthy, subhuman wretch you are without the holy-hoof print on your heart.
Someone knocks on your door at 7:30 every Saturday with pamphlets telling you you MUST believe or be destroyed on the day the world is put down.
Now imagine that all the vast followers of Unicornism have banded together to pass laws based on their holy writings. Horses are the unicorn’s messengers. Anyone allergic to the messengers are abominations and cannot marry. Wives must commit to wearing a saddle at all times. You must donate a percentage of all your earnings to the tithe trough. Jockeys are allowed to do horrible things to children and not be prosecuted.
For forty days every spring you must eat only hay.
And to get into the grand paradise pasture in the sky you had to have a horn surgically implanted on your forehead. You must do this and never question why. Otherwise you would be sent to the infernal glue factory of doom and have to muck stalls for all eternity.
Essentially, they’ve got all the same ammo. A whole bunch of people that believe. An old book of contradicting stories that they claim was written by the unicorn. Years of tradition.
And if they can’t convert, they’re willing to kill non-believers (probably with that horn) to get into good graces of their holy equestrian overlord.
Wouldn’t you want some proof of this unicorn? Or would you just go along with it because, hey, YOU don’t believe it, but it would be presumptuous to assume there’s not REALLY a unicorn, right?
First of all that sounds like Islam you are speaking of not Christianity, but for the sake of argument I will accept your premise.
I would say yes. If that was the long established prevailing majority view then I think it is the default position. I think it has the rebuttable presumption of truth. That is the same way with all scientific endeavor. The earth was viewed as flat until someone came in and proved otherwise. People may have thought it was not, but the flat earthers did not have to prove it was flat, the round earthers had to prove it was round. Of course the problem with that analogy is that nearly all of the examples we have will be of long held beliefs which were later proven wrong. However, there are innumerable views that were held by a minority that were not proven to be true.
It sounds to me like your real issue is with your perception of God. You don’t like this Being because of your perception of how some of His followers. You don’t like your interpretation of what He has said. You don’t want to be bound to or by Him. But those are very different issues than does He exist.
Very few people agreed with the things the followers of Hitler said, but he existed. Very few people liked his writings, but he existed. Very few people want to emulate him, but he existed.
Your arguments to not tackle the existence, but the application of the existence.