Where Does The Burden Of Proof Fall?

[Christopher Carrion]

I have noted in previous postings statements like this: “The atheist does not need to prove that God doesn’t exist; the theist must prove that God exists.”

 

This raises the question: Where exactly does the burden of proof fall?

 

Starting from the atheist’s point of view, how could a person professing atheism go about proving God’s non-existence?

 

To do so would mean that a person would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions to know for sure that God does not exist. I hope this is obvious, but such a person with such knowledge would in fact be “god” themselves.

 

OK. Since we all recognise that it is impossible for man to know absolutely everything, and thus actually prove God’s non-existence, then those who profess atheism must change tack slightly and assert that they do not need to prove that God doesn’t exist, but insist that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist.

 

In doing this, those who profess atheism are insisting that the burden of proof belongs with those like me who assert the affirmative proposition (ie, “That God exists”) as opposed to those who assert the negative proposition (ie, “That God does not exist”), which they know is ultimately unprovable anyway.

 

However, this very proposition, “that the burden of proof falls on the theist”, is in and of itself also an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist? This point is often overlooked.

 

We need to note that atheism is just as much an affirmative proposition as theism. For example:

 

Atheism:

1)The doctrine or belief that there is no god or the assertion that his existence is meaningless.

2)Rejection of belief in God or gods.

Collins English Dictionary, 1981

 

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 1984

 

“Atheism: The critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the non-existence of God is a certainty.”

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992

 

Thus, since both propositions (ie, “That God exists” and “That God does not exist”) are equally affirmative, it appears that the burden of proof falls EQUALLY on both the atheist AND the theist.

 

So, recognising that the burden of proof falls equally on both, the person professing atheism must change tack again. Since the atheist position is ultimately unprovable, the person professing atheism tries to argue that the theist position is similar, and thus asserts that “… actual proof of God’s existence is not possible”.

 

Again, this proposition, “that proof of God’s existence is not possible”, is in and of itself an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that no proof of God’s existence is possible? What exactly would we count as “proof” anyway? How can we be sure God doesn’t exist until we find and exhaust all possible proofs?

 

Perhaps what is meant by their statement is simply that “… there is no evidence for God’s existence.”

 

Not so. I, like many before me, have proposed that the complexity of living organisms is excellent evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (and please note: I said evidence, not proof). If this is not considered good evidence, then I must ask of those who profess atheism this question:

 

“What evidence then would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, either by human beings or by some other intelligence?”

 

Consider the SETI project: The whole SETI project is based around discovering a radio signal from outer space that could be interpreted as evidence for an intelligent message sender. So, what criteria do they use?

 

The answer is quite simple: SETI is looking for a radio signal from outer space that is not just random background noise nor from a known source, either human or otherwise. What they are looking for is a signal from outer space with non-random information encoded in it; something deliberate. Such a deliberate signal if found would be interpreted as having come from an intelligent source.

 

So, suppose we are wandering around a forest, we look down, and find a stone arrowhead. I doubt of anyone reading this would believe that anything but a human being crafted such an arrowhead. Why? Simply because no known natural process or any other creature except a human being is known to craft arrowheads. Encoded in the arrowhead’s simple design is the fact that it was thought about and deliberately designed and crafted for a particular purpose. It is deliberate and non-random. Like a deliberate, non-random radio signal from outer space, the arrowhead becomes good evidence that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

 

But I ask, what about the human being who found it?

 

For example: The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Its mere 1.5 kg (about 3 pounds) contains at least 2,500 million neurons; if you stretched them all out and laid them end to end, it would come to about 75 km (about 45 miles) worth; the brain’s information processing capabilities are absolutely staggering.

 

Then there is the intricate design complexities shown in the heart, lungs, blood, kidneys, liver, eyes, ears, nose, stomach and intestines, muscles, skeleton, skin, etc, etc, etc. Then there is the complexity of the cell including its DNA mechanisms; you can store all the DNA information to replicate the entire current world’s population of over 6 billion people in a volume of less than half an aspirin!

 

I believe that it is simply irrational to believe that something as simple and basic as a stone arrowhead could be declared to be the product of an intelligent designer, but the staggeringly complex human being who found it is declared to be just a product of time and chance. That sort of reasoning is simply absurd.

 

Recognising this, the last refuge then for someone who professes atheism is to assert that “… belief in God is irrational”.

 

Again, this statement presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof, and of course, that in and of itself becomes another proposition that also requires proof. Can it be proved that belief in God is irrational?

 

So consider: What evidence does anyone have for the existence of another person’s mind?

 

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? So, for those who profess atheism, it appears that people can believe in the existence of something that we all believe exists without actually having any evidence or proof for its actual existence.

 

TJR666

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Correction. We do not need to prove that the Christian "God" does not exist with any autonomy from the texts that constitute it, because thanks to the wonders of modern archaeology and OBJECTIVE historical research we now know quite incontrovertibly what inspired its initial creation, where its core characteristics are derived from, and from which PR-EXISTING mythologies and belief systems the stories from which it derives its significance were, ahem, "borrowed".

 

As an aside, can you prove to me that Thor does not exist? Or Lugh Lamfhada, or Morrigan, or Wodin, or Anubis, or Hel, or Niddhog.....

[Lunar Shadow]

Yea Lokmer rocks. I wish he would post in the debating xers and theological issues forums more often. He has shared from a lota books. The guy is a walking talking library.

Yeah he is only around every now and then just cuz he is on like 5 boards and he is working full time on his movie project. He is a walking librairy I am fortunate to pick his brain often (he is only 28 this month). the guy absorbs info like a freakin spounge

 

Yea. Fact is; the more you read/learn/do, the more you can understand. Me, I always have a browser open to wikipedia and websters dictionary just in case. Its a good habit. Ignorance is a hole that will be filled. Reason for excitment. If I don't understand but only think I do and spew ignorance the embarrasment will help me remember what another heathen pointed out to me. I have shame but not enough to keep me from sharing my understanding. Hehe.

Yeah I know what you are saying here but I am the type where I want to be certain when I post, but thats the type of person I am.