Burden of proof?

Why do Atheists like to claim it is only Theists with the "burden of proof"?

Burden of proof is not really any kind of formal logic or anything, it is more convention, which says that when somebody walks up to you and says "X is so", THEY need to prove it to you. If someone walks up to you and says "X is so", it is not automatically true, and then the OTHER person must prove it false or true. So basically, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.

How this is used, however, is tricky. When entering a formal debate, it is the duty of BOTH sides, to prove their position, so that the audience can see whose position has greater support. The purpose of a debate is to educate people, because they sit in front of two people with opposite positions, and hope these two people present THEIR case, and whoever's case is made stronger, "wins". Basically, I feel that in ANY debate, burden of proof is almost a non-issue. Neither side are "making a claim" to try and prove to the other side. Instead, both sides HAVE a position, regarding the subject, and are meant to support their position, as well as find logical errors and problems in their opponent's case. Trying to enter a formal debate while demanding you have no burden to prove your position, is cowardice and shows either that you CAN'T prove your position (i.e. your position doesn't have much support), or that you are aren't really interested in educating people at all. Again, the purpose of a debate is to see the case made for two opposing positions.
Whatever the debate topic happens to be, one of the debaters will be debating the "affirmative", that is, the topic statement is TRUE. And the other debates the negation, the topic statement is FALSE. There is no rule that I'm aware of, which states that in a debate, the negater never has to prove his position, but he's only their to keep the seat warm and try to dismantle their opponents arguments only, while never trying to prove their own. There is no "default" position in a debate, there is simply a perfectly valid question or statement, and each debater aught to be able to show proofs for their position, as well as be able to defend their position.
When a debater claims their position is "default", they are merely assuming themselves true, which is begging the question, and is also cowardice.
I do grant that one could concoct a story that shows a debater DOES have a default position; for example, debating whether the sun is hot or not. It seems it could be said that the default position is that the sun is hot, it is what 99.999% of the world believe and have experienced. But on the other hand, nobody debates whether the sun is hot. In fact, I don't believe "default" positions are ever debated on seriously. And even if they were, if I grant that, then it is quite obvious, since most of the world is theist/deist, it is THEM with the default position, and the Atheist with the radical claim. Thus the Theist is the one with no burden of proof. But this is not so. It is just an appeal to popularity.
In sum, a formal debate does NOT have default positions, NOR does either side get a free ticket out of proving their position. To claim either is cowardice and shows their unwillingness to defend their ideas, or educate the audience.

Another way to look at burden of proof, is that it is very subjective and personal. In other words, if a Theist walks up to an Atheist and says "God exists", then TO THE ATHEIST, the Theist has just made a claim and has the burden of proof to prove it. But likewise, if an Atheist walks up to a Theist and says "there is no God", then TO THE THEIST, has just made a claim which requires proving. BOTH are positive claims to knowledge, knowing God exists/knowing God doesn't exist. When discourse is had, both parties are making a claim to knowledge, so neither has burden of proof, they both need to prove their positions if they want to convince the other.
This burden duality, as I'll call it, does not exist ONLY when one party does NOT hold a position of knowledge. In other words, he can't negate, nor uphold, he simply doesn't know. A person who has no position of positive knowledge, simply cannot have a burden of proof, because they are making no claims. You don't have to "prove" that "I don't know" is the "truth". So picture this, both an Atheist AND a Theist walk up to an agnostic and one says "God doesn't exist", the other says "God does exist": the agnostic says "I don't know if either is true or false". In this case it is still the Theist and Atheist who have the burden of proof, because they are making a positive claim to knowledge. The agnostic is not required to "prove" that he doesn't know. Nor is he required to convince other people to "not know". You can't convince people to have no knowledge on a thing.
It is really hard NOT to have this situation, because nobody ever walks up to you to convince you they "don't know" if something is true or false. Just what are they trying to make you believe? However, if they claim that a certain knowledge (that something is true or false) is UNknowable, then they too are making a positive claim to knowledge, in that such knowledge is impossible to obtain. Which means they also have burden to prove that knowledge of the thing is impossible to gain. So basically, you can positively claim "God exists", you can claim "God doesn't exist", you can claim "we can't ever know if God exists"; but nobody will ever come up to say, "we don't know if God exists or not". That is not a position making any claims at all, which is why people don't go around trying to convince others of it, it is really just a personal journey. Soon enough they WILL hold a positive position, and when they find that position, it must, after all, be based on some kind of real data and reasoning, and thus they now have burden of proof as well. Plus you can't claim "we" don't know, because of course lots of people DO claim to know. The only thing you can say is "I" don't know.

I might also say that you can NOT argue for a person to BECOME an agnostic. Agnostic is where you are when you don't have the facts and can't choose, but once the facts are on the table, you make a choice. Later on if you find the facts not convincing any more, you swap to another position if the data lends that way instead. But you cannot "go back" to a position of having "not enough facts" and thus agnostic once more. Somebody might ask a child "what temperature does water freeze at?" They will be agnostic, they just don't know, they don't have the facts, they can't make a positive claim that it is zero or one hundred fifty. But once they get the facts, and learn that it freezes at 32F, they can never go back to just "not knowing". The facts are in, they have made a choice. They believe what their teacher said. Someday maybe another teacher will say it freezes at 0, hmm, conflict. This doesn't mean he goes to a position of "I don't know". Once the facts are down, he can only make a positive claim, either the facts say 32, or the facts better say 0, but the facts only show those. You cannot just return to "I don't know".
So I say all that to say this, you cannot argue a person to return to ignorance. They already have the data to choose one position or another, you can only pretend to be ignorant again, with all the facts on the table, by declaring no facts as sufficient for a position. But this is just playing intellectual games. A fact is a fact, and if a fact points to one thing, then chances are that one thing is true. If facts seem to point to two things, with more facts disproving them, chances are very good, for you personally, you will lean toward one position or another, based on those facts. It is very hard to maintain a state of "I don't know because the facts don't say". And if you ARE maintaining such a position, then frankly you have no place in a debate! Debates are for people who have made decisions based on the facts, and they are debating to show those facts and defend their position. Debates aren't for wishy-washy half-agnostics who can't make up their mind. You don't enter debate to convince a public to make themselves ignorant of the facts and declare a non-position for themselves on the issue.

In conclusion, people entering a debate simply cannot, and should not, declare themselves exempt from proving their positions. They have NO RIGHT to declare themselves "default", nor that only their opponent has the burden to prove their position. Debates are also not a place for agnostics and people undecided on the debate topic. A debate topic is usually in the form of a question with a true/false or yes/no answer. Debaters are people affirming the yes/true, affirming the no/false, but not for people who can't make up their mind. Debates aren't for people to show up and declare the evidence isn't good enough for THEM. They need to go home, read some more, make up their mind, and then come back and explain to the world why they made the choice. Half-agnostics, agnostics, people who refuse to say they really hold a position, declare themselves exempt from burden, or say they have the "default" position, are not worth debating and are instead practicing cowardice.


Burden of proof does not belong in debates, it belongs amongst friends and street conversations and informal chit-chats. Somebody strikes up a conversation by making a claim which goes against what the other personal already believes, so the person who made the claim has the burden to at least give some support for it. In debate, both parties have a position, and they are basically telling each OTHER their position is true. So to one debater, the other is making the claim, and to the other debater, he is making the claim.
Sometimes you see an example given that goes something like this:

Bob: "Hi, did you know God really exists!"
Joe: "No he doesn't."
Bob: "Oh ya, prove it then!"
Joe: "No, you made the claim, you have to prove it."

And so on. The problem here is just semantics. The burden of proof lies with Bob only in that Bob started the conversation and made the initial claim. But if you notice, Joe also made a claim to knowledge by saying the opposite, he said "NO, he doesn't". At this point, regardless of who started the conversation, BOTH parties actually have a positive claim. To Joe, Bob is making a claim which goes against what he believes, and so Bob needs to prove it. But to Bob, Joe is also making a claim that goes against what HE believes, and so he needs to prove it. Now this being casual chit-chat, Bob has the burden, or else he needs to not open his big mouth. But debates don't happen this way. In a debate, a question is posed, and two people of opposing ideas step up to the mat to answer it. There is no casual "you started it". If Bob and Joe were to enter debate, Joe has NO right and no ground to state that Bob is making the claim. Bob is not making any claim, he is just there to answer the debate question, same as Joe. After all the shoe fits both ways, Bob could easily say it is Joe who is showing up with the radical claim that God doesn't exist, and so HE has the burden. There is no difference, because as I said, the person who holds the affirmative in a debate doesn't automatically have the burden of proof. That is silly because it is just semantics again, for example, a debate statement could be:
"The Christian God exists" (Affirmative belongs to the Christian)
"The Christian God does not exist" (Affirmative belongs to the Atheist)

Depending on how you word a question or statement, does not change who has the burden of proof. So again, question of default positions and burdens of proof do not belong in formal debate. To bring them up shows cowardice and unwillingness to educate and even debate in the first place. Entering a debate is like entering into marriage, one side can't simply say "well I'm exempt from doing anything, it's your job to do it all." No it is equal give and take.


Another issue often brought up is that is proving a negative. People generally just say "It's impossible to prove a negative, therefore a person holding that position doesn't HAVE to prove it."
Well this is just wrong. It may be true that it is impossible to "PROVE" a negative without a shadow of a doubt, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. Somebody might tell me there is a skunk in my room, and I'll say no there isn't. Now are we really going to say it's "impossible" for me to prove a negative that no skunk is in my room? I DO have evidence, I've looked high and low, and do not see one. So there is really no question about burden of proof. What is the proof that there IS a skunk? What is the proof that there ISN'T one? My proof is that I've looked high and low and don't see it. What is theres? Now is a good time to enter debate, provide the proofs and evidences for both our positions, and see whose is strongest.
Also I am really just unsure why "proving a negative" really has any relation to burden of proof anyway. They are not connected with any rule I know about. Secondly, I really don't think proving a negative IS impossible, I think that is a generalization. Proving a negative is quite easy when it is bound in such a way as it becomes doable for us to check. Such as a skunk in my room, or cheese on the moon. You can always prove there are "none" of something when that something in bound to a verifiable existence.
Let's cut to the chase, they say proving a negative is impossible when the negative is NOT bound to a verifiable existence. Namely, God. Since God as defined, is spirit, basically living in another dimension we as humans can't access, being "outside" our universe, it can't be verified. However, that doesn't mean you have NO evidence, and that certainly doesn't mean you are somehow relieved of burden to prove or that you have the default position.
Seriously, I can't disprove there is cheese on another planet in another galaxy. I can't disprove that negative, though I'd be highly interested in the positive claim of it. But whether it does or doesn't exist, is of no consequence to me, I don't NEED to believe it's out there. Nobody debates such things. This is why I find arguments involving tea cups, pink unicorns, fairies, and spaghetti monsters useless. I really don't care if somebody wants to believe such things are out there, their existence is of no consequence to me. And nobody on earth IS debating such things. We are talking about GOD. His existence is of EXTREME consequence, and people DO debate such things. So it is very important to have proves for both. If you declare that you have no evidence to prove this negative, then state as much. The absence of evidence to disprove something does not automatically mean that something is true, nobody would suggest so. If Atheists would just be clear on this point, instead of being tricky and playing semantic games in debates, things would be better off. Why don't they simply say they have NO proof that God DOESN'T exist, but they certainly can disprove statements made that He DOES exist. Since this is the tactic of most Atheists, they simply need to say so, and stop playing games with burden of proof and default positions.
However, I have also talked to Atheists who say they DO have positive evidence to disprove this negative, and good for them, they should enter some debates. And enter them WITHOUT playing these games, and just provide their proofs, such as they are.

Let me put it this way, for any given question or statement, it is not absolutely true that proving the negative is somehow harder or more impossible then proving the positive. Just because someone claims there is cheese on Orion's Belt, doesn't mean it is easier to prove then disprove. In fact I think it's equally impossible to prove either. What possible evidence does the affirmative have accept to say, "well, it's possible there is cheese, therefore to some degree it's probable". However, no philosopher is going to say that if something is possible, that makes it true by default in absence of proof to the negation. So you say it's possible cheese exists on the Belt, I say I can't disprove it; this does not mean you win and cheese must exist. It means nothing, and both sides are still equally valid. Possibilities do not equal truth, and if possibilities are your strongest evidence, then surely nobody needs to believe your claim, and we can go back to our lives. The main reason possabilities do not equal truth is that in absence of other evidence, it is just as equally possible that X does NOT exist. You say it's possible cheese exists, I say I can't exactly disprove it, BUT, it is just as equally possible cheese does NOT exist, and they cancel each other out in absence of other evidence. In fact, for ANY claim, in absence of other evidence, claims of possibilities cancel each other out.

So back to disproving a negative, while it is certainly harder to do in some cases, I'm afraid this doesn't give you special treatment.
Theist/Atheist debates don't always revolve around "proving a negative", they are not always just "Does God exist". Debates are often of other natures, such as "Is the Christian faith tenable", "Is it reasonable", "Is it internally consistent", "Does the supernatural exist", "Can miracles happen", etc... Often debating about God is entirely about logic and reason, justification, consistency, coherency, and objective truths regarding the evidence that, say, the Bible is true. These do not require proving a negative, but showing that it is not "consistent", or not "coherent", and so on.
For the simple question, "Does God exist", there can be only a few positions:

Yes - You have become convinced by the evidence and/or experiences.
No - You have decided God does NOT exist, by some other evidence/experience
Dunno - You have not seen enough data to point one way or another.
Strong agnostic - You decide, on such a question, we can never know the answer.

Yes, No, and strong agnostic, are positions making a positive claim of knowledge. You can only obtain knowledge through facts and reason and logic, therefore there must exist SOME kind of evidence to prove that position, which made you believe in it. These are the facts and proofs and reasons which you are expected to give in a debate. For if you have no facts, evidences, reasons, or logic for you position, then why do you hold it?
For the "Dunno" guy, he should never be in the debate, or even talk about it. He belongs in the audience listening to a debate between the others, or reading books at home. It is not a strong or useful debate to try and convince somebody to return to ignorance and change their position to "I don't know because I don't have the facts". You can't return to not having the facts. Though you can certainly switch positions based on the facts.



With that, I hope I have shown that the silly claims of skeptics and Atheists about default positions and burden of proof arguments do not belong in debate. To try and give yourself such pleasures is cowardice and shows your lack of wanting to participate. It may even expose that you hold your beliefs on even less evidence (thus more faith) then your opponent, which we know you just can't have!
So the next time you want to debate a person, don't start out by saying you don't have to prove anything, and only THEY have to prove THEIR position, because somehow you have elevated status. Debates don't work that way. And I see this as why so many Atheists and skeptics do not want fair and balanced and formal debates, because they know they do not have as much evidence. But it would be nice if they at least admitted as much, and make known what they really want to do is sit there on the defense, trying to disprove every evidence the other side gives.
Remember that next time you want to enter debate with someone, if they start complaining about these things, they aren't worth debating. Do not debate people who want elevated status, do not debate agnostics, it is a waste of time. Do not get sucked into a debate where your opponent tries to tell you that YOU are the one making a claim. Sometimes an Atheistic radio show, for example, will invite a Christian guest on their show, basically demanding them to prove their God, and telling him HE is the one "making the claim". This is trickery. It is THEIR show, THEY invited the guest one, so what do THEY have to say? You don't invite a guest to your show to tell them THEY are making a claim. These games by skeptics are silly and show a lack of desire to actually debate. I've heard time and again, so many times, on Atheist shows, where the host simply flat out refuses to prove their own position, or even prove their claims, even as they sit their demanding that their guest is the one making the claim, and so THEY have the burden of proof. It is dishonest and cowardly. BOTH sides, are required to back up their statements and claims, simple as that.



Peace