Who has the burden of proof when discussing the existence of God?

                When I’m browsing around online, I always see a meme or two in my facebook feed that say that the burden of proof is on the theist to prove the existence of God and that atheism is the default position that we have from birth. Now are both of these tenants true? What I would like to do here is to posit that the burden of proof is in fact on both the theist and the atheist, because we both make positive statements on the existence or lack of existence of a God or gods.
                So first off, what is a definition of the burden of proof? A quick search yields the definition of “the obligation to prove one’s assertion”. So does the theist have a burden of proof by asserting God exists? Definitely. Does the atheist have a burden of proof by asserting that God or gods do not exist? Absolutely! Both the atheist and the theist is making a positive claim on the existence or non-existence of God. If we were to claim a true neutral position in this spectrum, I would say that would be the agnostic, because that position claims that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable, rendering the conversation moot. But then again, there is the claim that there is no answer to this question, so one could say that the agnostic also has a burden of proof.
                So when it comes to this quick question, any sort of claim about God and his existence has a burden of proof in one way or another. If you are wondering about this answer, allow me to take a pragmatic view for a minute an introduce Pascal’s wager. This wager introduces both sides of the argument. God either exists or he does not. If he does exist and you believe in him, you will be in heaven when you die. If he does exist and you don’t believe in him, you will be in hell when you die. In both belief and non belief and God does not exist, you won’t know either way because death in the end. So by Pascal’s wager it is in one’s best interest to believe in God.

Now I did not introduce Pascal’s wager to dismiss the burden of proof out of hand, but rather to enhance it. I am trying to say we need to be serious when it comes to providing our proof for God. Because we are called to go forth and make disciples of men, we have to take this duty seriously and teach as Christ taught, so that men may be saved from their wicked ways. May God bless you and have a good rest of your day. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 26, 2016 at 12:32 AM

    It's hard for me to think that a weak atheist, one who does not necessarily 'assert' that there absolutely is no god or gods, but simply doesn't believe in any established theism, would have any burden of truth. This to me would mean that I would then have a burden of proof for every belief system I don't believe in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joshua D. WoffordMay 28, 2016 at 10:37 AM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Joshua D. WoffordMay 28, 2016 at 10:38 AM

      This is where it can get murky, because I think we can get into a semantics argument. I would argue an atheist, weak or strong, by definition is asserting there is no God or gods, because that is the textbook definition of an atheist. Your definition to me is more akin to an agnostic.
      As far as a burden of proof for every belief system you don't believe in, I don't think you do. You just have to provide the best possible evidence for your belief. I do believe in maintaining a flexible position so as to not become a crazy fundamentalist, but I doubt I will be changing from my belief in Christ.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First post in 2 years, catching up on life, reflections on fatherhood

          To those of you who are still following me and came back to see this post, thank you for stopping in. It has been 2 years since I last posted anything to this page (little over actually since my animal suffering post was July 10, 2021). I fell off writing because my wife and I were going through one of our biggest challenges we have faced, the supposed impending death and miscarriage of our second child, Austin. I say supposed because God is good and Austin survived long odds to not only make it to term, but he is a happy almost 2 year old now. Our daughter Abby is also doing great, almost 4 now, and she loves her brother fiercely. This particular post won’t necessarily be focusing on an apologetics topic (I hope to tackle the origin and uses of different Bible translations soon), I want to do use this post to tell that story of Austin’s miraculous turn around in the womb, and reflect on what all God has shown me and grown me in during almost 4 ye...
Read more

Obituary for Henry Harding Wofford

 Henry Harding Wofford of Ponder Texas went home to be with the Lord on February 22, 2021. Henry was born on June 3, 1942 to Henry Guy and Lela Mae Wofford. Henry is survived by his wife Janice his son Bill Wofford of Ponder his son and daughter-in-law John and Jennifer Wofford of Krugerville. His 4 grandchildren Joshua and wife Elizabeth of Summerville South Carolina. Jacob Wofford of Irvine California. Kaitlyn Wofford of College Station Texas and Joseph Wofford of Krugerville Texas and 1 great granddaughter Abigail Wofford of Summerville South Carolina. Also a brother Leon Brady of Snyder Texas. Plus many nieces and nephews.  Henry was a member of Prairie Grove Road Baptist Church in Valley View Texas.  Henry had many hobbies and interests from hunting to fishing and rode in many rodeos in his younger days. His favorite hobby was spoiling his grandchildren and making rocking horses and rocking chairs and many other toys.  
Read more

Evidence to Support Creation/Intelligent Design

                During my post concerning education, I made comments over how evolution can be taught in a classroom without affecting the worldview of the students. Thanks to the comment from someone on the article, I got to thinking about the opposite side, creationism/intelligent design. How could one introduce these theories and ideas without imposing a worldview on your students? Now unfortunately I cannot think of a way to introduce these views without introducing some sort of God, but they can be introduced by using the Deistic God, who is an impersonal being that started the universe and then left everything alone within this creation.   A deistic god does not push a specific worldview per say, but it does point toward a supernatural being that cannot be scientifically proven in the classical sense, so some people may already be throwing up their hands and claim multiple problems with teaching...
Read more