The Instigator
GQontheEQ
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
UnderStated
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The burden of proof is on the believer in god not the nonbeliever.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 51386
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

GQontheEQ

Pro

When ever I am debating someone on the god hypothesis it generally ends up to "you can't prove god exist" or "you can't prove that does't exist.".

It is my position that the burden of proof belong to the the believer, because no matter how much evidence the non-believer may provide it will never be enough because the god hypothesis is not falsifiable. With that being said it would only make sense to put then burden of proof on the position that can be proven.
UnderStated

Con

When you were posting this argument, I assume you put some thought into this. You didn't just type up something, because you knew that if you typed up an argument with no backing, you would loose the debate, just like I did.
In these respects do you not believe that Religions should post their facts in order for their argument to be taken seriously?
Because arguing these kind of topics, we both there is no right answer, just like if we were arguing the death penalty and also most of the bills that pass through congress or parliament (depending on where you are from). These topics have no right answer and are therefore up to the amount of evidence, credibility and plausibility that the argument provides.

There is no proving someone is right or wrong here, therefore the burden of proof is irrelevant when it comes to the question of a higher power.

I've grown in a Christian family with only my dad who was atheist, with him no playing no part in my religious upbringing.
Even with that me and my brother have both turned out to be atheists. We turned to atheism not because our father turned us over, but because when we asked him why he didn't believe, he said for him, he didn't see enough proof.
We then thought this a great deal about this and both came down the same conclusion, there is, in all likelihood, no god.

We didn't turn atheist because there was proof that god didn't exist, but because there was no proof that god exists, and Atheism had more credibility and plausibility against the bible which we followed. There is no burden of proof, since no one can prove they talked to god unless he talks to all of us at the same time and place, which is impossible. It is up to deciding which argument you think has the most credibility, plausibility and evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
GQontheEQ

Pro

GQontheEQ forfeited this round.
UnderStated

Con

UnderStated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GQontheEQ

Pro

GQontheEQ forfeited this round.
UnderStated

Con

UnderStated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GQontheEQ

Pro

GQontheEQ forfeited this round.
UnderStated

Con

UnderStated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GQontheEQ

Pro

GQontheEQ forfeited this round.
UnderStated

Con

UnderStated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Burden of proof is always on those making "Truth" claims or Assertions from Deductive reasoning, because Evidence must be demonstrated for their Premise.

Those making Inductive assumptions already have given Proof of their assumptions.

Those making the Blind Assertions have no evidence, so they must provide It, thus they must shoulder the Burden Of Proof!

Because they are the only ones who have given no evidence to achieve their Assertion.
Posted by UnderStated 3 years ago
UnderStated
my point exactly my friend!
I agree with you, this is why i say that the burden of proof is irrelevant, since we can't prove it, it is down to who has the more evidence, plausibility and credibility.
Science has all three
Posted by UnderStated 3 years ago
UnderStated
my point exactly my friend!
I agree with you, this is why i say that the burden of proof is irrelevant, since we can't prove it, it is down to who has the more evidence, plausibility and credibility.
Science has all three
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The Way I look at it, whoever makes Assertions is the one who must back their Assertions with Evidence.

Science makes Assumptions based on already existing evidence.
All existing evidence points towards the universe expanding away from a central cataclysmic event, which was given the Name Big bang, this is an assumption (conclusion) based on Inductive Reasoning.
The laws of inductive reasoning is that it is based on a number of premises that appear to be correct, but each premise has it's own verification or evidences. The Conclusion is never Absolute, it can only ever be an Assumption. So science Assumes the Big Bang, it is not a concrete, definitive conclusion as we cannot make such conclusions from Inductive Reasoning.

The Theological God Did It is an Assertion derived from Deductive Reasoning based on a Single Premise (God Exists as an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, Creator).
The conclusions from Deductive reasoning are Assertions, Taken As Absolute Truth.
The problem with Deductive reasoning is that if the Premise is flawed, the conclusion (God Did It) is False.
Thus it is up to the person making the Deductive based Assertion to prove that their Premise is True, otherwise their Conclusion cannot ever be accepted as True.

As far as Science goes, their Conclusion is more Truthful as all the premises used to establish the Conclusion have already been Verified.
The Main Premise for the God Did It deductive Assertion has not been Verified and Thus Needs To Be Verified.
This is the reason those making Deductive Assertions have the responsibility to prove their Premise.
Because the Inductive Opposing Assumption already carries Proof.
So the Burden of Proof Is on the Deductive Reasoners, or Those Asserting God.
Posted by UnderStated 3 years ago
UnderStated
My point is that the burden of proof is completly irrelevant
call me when you've got a jar of god and i'll call when i have a jar of the universe (with no god)
Posted by theJackster 3 years ago
theJackster
If "UnderStated" is anything like me, I first started out believing in God because that was what I was told. I then turned atheist because I could no longer believe in what I was told. Finally, full circle when I sought to understand what God is, means and does. In fact, simply because one doesn't believe in God does not mean that God has no influence over that persons life. To not believe in God is to simply not understand the systems of God and how His power impacts your own personal life, Believe it or not.
Posted by OliveJuice 3 years ago
OliveJuice
These claims seem to be pretty comparable, making for an illegitimate debate. If the burden of proof were to be placed upon the atheist, that person must be able to strongly support their claim that a deity does not exist. In contrast, if the burden of proof were on the theist, he/she must clearly prove their point. Pro is claiming that the burden of proof lies on the theist, meaning that the atheist does not need to prove their point with research and whatnot, for whatever reasons. Con is claiming that the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which would mean that the atheist would need to prove why there is reason to believe that a deity does not exist; hinting that there just isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise would support Pro's claim. For example, here is an anecdote used by Con: "We turned to atheism not because our father turned us over, but because when we asked him why he didn't believe, he said for him, he didn't see enough proof. We then thought this a great deal about this and both came down the same conclusion, there is, in all likelihood, no god." Do you see how Con states that the reason that he, or they, do not believe in a deity is because there is not enough proof to think otherwise and it is unlikely that there is one? This would place the burden of proof on the theist, blatantly supporting Pro's claim.
Posted by lightingbolt50 3 years ago
lightingbolt50
Little, 1. links? 2. It occur to you that may be because they were indoctrinated to believe that? 3. You go bowling with god every tuesday? You hang out and have a few beers? 4. Well he isn't, since we have never, NEVER found unbiased proof for his existence.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 3 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
A recent study shows that children are inherently aware of the existence of God and are inclined to seek Him out. This is in line with what the Bible says. It says that everyone is born with a knowledge of their Creator. Besides. I don't need proof. I have a personal relationship with God. He is as real as someone I can see and touch. I pity anyone who doesn't know Him.
No votes have been placed for this debate.