Theists vs. Atheists: Which Group Has the Burden of Proof? – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

A common refrain from those atheists who are willing to debate theists is that theists, not atheists, have the burden of proof in the debate over Gods existence.

Internet atheist Matt Dillahunty made this claim in our recent debate. Regrettably, it looks doubtful that Dillahunty and I will debate again. He didnt fare wellhe had no real understanding of any of the ten classical proofs of Gods existence and in the wake of his confused and rambling attempts at exculpation he refuses to debate me again.

His reluctance is understandablehe was clearly shaken by the revelation that his rejection of the proofs of Gods existence isnt based on any actual understanding on his part of the arguments. Like all other internet atheists Ive encountered, Dillahunty is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for Gods existence and is unwilling to admit his ignorance or correct it.

So, because I cant do it in a debate format, Ill address Dillahuntys claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over Gods existence in this post.

Dillahunty said: Normally I point out in these debates that Im not here to defend a no because the burden of proof is on those who say there is a yes. Its not up to atheists to prove that a God doesnt exist.

Atheists own arguments against Gods existence are actually few and weakfor example, Dillahuntys favorite argument against God is the argument from Divine Hiddenness, which I discuss here. The argument boils down to this: if God exists, He would make atheists believe in Him. Atheists dont believe in Him, so He doesnt exist.

By this logic, atheists could make God exist by agreeing to believe in Him, and they could make Him go into and out of existence on alternate days if they believed and disbelieved in unison.

In order to elide the obvious conclusion that they dont have any good arguments, atheists claim that, in a debate, the burden of proof is always on the yes side, not the no side. Their argument is that it is difficult to prove a negative. But that is irrelevant to the question of Gods existence because both theists and atheists make positive assertions. The fundamental question is, Why is there something rather than nothing? Theists say God is the ground of existence and atheists say Nature is the ground of existence.

A negative claim by atheists We have no idea why there is something rather than nothing is a proclamation of ignorance, not an immunity idol. That is, it confers no tribal immunity from responsibility to provide evidence and reason in support of the view that the universe exists without God. Im ignorant is no substitute for a reasoned argument supported by evidence.

Ordinarily, both sides in a debate have an obligation to present evidence and logic to support their views. Under what circumstances would a participant in a debate really have no burden of proof?

To answer this, consider that a debate may have one or another primary goal:

One example of #2 is a legal proceeding in American law, in which only the prosecutor, but not the defendant, has a burden of proof. This is because of the presumption of innocence implied in the Fifth Amendmentinnocence is the default position. Thus an assertion of guilt incurs all the burden of proof.

Note that truth in the legal framework (context #2) is a secondary goal. The defendant may remain silent, even if by doing so he is concealing evidence. The trial is fair even if a guilty defendant is acquitted, provided the framework was observed.

So which kind of debate is the debate over the existence of God? It is certainly one in which truth is paramount the question of Gods existence is the most important question that can be asked, and there is no coherent framework no immunity idol that would exempt atheists from responsibility to use evidence and logic, just as theists do.

Only when truth is not the paramount goal of a debate is one side justifiably relieved of the burden of proof. So where does that leave atheists who claim they have no such burden?

Atheists need to make their case with as much evidence and logic as they can muster. When they are unable or afraid to do so, their silence can and should count against them.

Note: Heres the debate:

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to Gods existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against Gods existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

and

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious fallacies is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

The debate to date:

View post:

Theists vs. Atheists: Which Group Has the Burden of Proof? - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence