I'd like to use this thread to discuss the question of who has the burden of proof in discussions concerning God. Do theists have burden of proof or do atheists have burden of proof?
Well, allow me to point out first of all that there are five different categories:
1. Gnostic Theist
They believe that God exists and they make the positive claim that God exists.
2. Agnostic Theist
They believe that God probably exists but they do not make a positive claim that God exists.
3. Gnostic Atheist
They believe that God does not exist and they make the negative claim that God does not exist.
4. Agnostic Atheist
They feel that there is no evidence for God's existence, but they are not making the negative claim that God does not exist.
5. True Agnostic
They do not know, they make no positive or negative claim, and they have no opinion except that we cannot and do not know.
As God has not physically shown Himself in this Univ
Dassault Papillon:
Crap. This dang Site started the thread prematurely. I wasn't finished writing.
erse in about 2000 years, God is neither provable nor disprovable until He shows Himself, though evidence of His existence may be discovered.
Therefore, Gnostic Theists and Gnostic Atheists share the burden of proof. God may exist, even if there's no apparent evidence of Him in this Universe, so making the negative claim that God does not exist cannot be proven (please don't use the stupid "you cannot disprove the Easter Bunny either" analogy). God may have His reasons for not showing Himself to humans. And may I remind the reader that many people claim to have experienced something supernatural. It's unlikely that all of these people are lying, and with some of these claims it's unlikely that a natural explanation exists, if they are telling the truth.
Likewise, unless solid evidence of God's existence is uncovered, making the claim that God exists cannot be proven. Proof of God's existence might be explainable through science, showing that it is not supernatural.
In the end, agnostics alone do not carry the burden of proof. They acknowledge that they could be wrong, and their stance on the issue is just what they think about it.
Feedback is appreciated, as long as it's not insulting or threatening.
