Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 10 years ago

Christians, how many times must the Burden of Proof fallacy be explained to you before you will understand it?

It's really simple: Those who make extraordinary claims, like the existence of God or that their religion speaks for Him, have the burden of proof, here. So, how many times must that be explained to you before you will accept it?

I am only asking because I have grown extremely weary of those who would demand that I believe just like them; yet, they cannot prove anything they claim to be true - while at the same time demanding that I prove them wrong. Why does this have to be explained so often and why do so many of you completely ignore it?


@ OK: How good of a job are you doing, if you convince no one?

Update 2:

dead fundie: Extraordinary means things that are not ordinary. No Christian would claim God is ordinary. On the contrary, they claim Him to be supernatural - that makes the claim that God exists extraordinary. Rather simple, actually.

Update 3:

@Sporks R Sharp: I have no burden of proof. I make no claims that I expect others to believe.

Update 4:

no1home2: There are no personal testimonies that would be accepted as evidence in any court that would establish the existence of God - period. Anecdotal evidence from a book written by anonymous authors is not evidence or personal testimony - it's just hearsay.

Update 5:

Martin S says, "The resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a powerful proof of the existence of God."

NO, it ISN'T!!! Just because something is written in a BOOK does not mean it is true. Why am I having to explain this to you?

17 Answers

  • Matt
    Lv 4
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Like many things that are explained to them, they will ignore it and skirt the issue so they they do not have to admit to themselves the obvious falsities of their beliefs.

  • 4 years ago

    If that was a real case in a court of law, it would be thrown out. The defendant is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. The testimony of the accuser would not be enough to convict them, especially if there was evidence which suggested reasonable doubt. Pictures of the person at an ATM and an ATM receipt would suggest reasonable doubt. No jury would convict under those circumstances. If you accused me of stealing $100 from you, you would have to prove that you had the $100 in the first place. You would also have to prove that the $100 in my pocket actually had belonged to you (forensics should be able to match the smudges on the bills to your fingerprints if the money had belonged to you). You would have to point out exactly where you were and where I was when the money was taken. I would have to be placed at the scene. Et cetera, et cetera. Now, the way the burden of proof has ALWAYS worked is like this: The burden of proof falls on the person making the absolute claim, no matter what the claim is. Period. You say that there absolutely is no God, prove it. If I said there absolutely is a God, it would be up to me to prove it. That is the way it is. Don't like it? Don't make absolute claims, otherwise you can be called upon to prove it.

  • 10 years ago

    Atheist mockers don't seem to understand that the burden of proof falls on the person making ANY claim, not just "extraordinary" claims.

    So, when an atheist comes along and claims that God doesn't exist, I have the logical right to demand evidence to support that claim.

    It is also true that if I come to YOU, and make the claim that God DOES exist, it is MY responsibility to provide evidence for that claim.

    But this does NOT release the atheist from his responsibility when he comes here on R & S and claims that God does NOT exist!

    Furthermore, legal evidence IS acceptable; it does not require a "test-tube" type of evidence. If THAT were the case, then the entire legal system would be thrown out the window! (That's not what you atheist mockers are asking for, is it? Or maybe it really IS, since you reject personal testimony as acceptable evidence!)

    I am only saying because I have grown extremely weary of those who demand that I NOT believe, just like them; yet they can not prove anything they CLAIM to be false - while at the same time, demanding that I prove them wrong! Why does this have to be explained so often, and why do so many atheist mockers completely ignore this?

    Based on YOUR logic, I can claim that you have no intelligence, and YOU would have to prove me wrong, with SOME kind of test-tube type of scientific evidence, such as a vial full of "intelligence", and since you can't do that, I would be right in stating categorically that you have no intelligence, and I wouldn't need to support my claims. So, is it a solid, a liquid, or a gas? What is the chemical compound of your alleged "intelligence"? Does it have a color and/or odor? Does it react with an agent? How about it's affect on litmus paper? Can you even show me ONE shred or iota of scientific evidence that you have even the LEAST amount of intelligence? Obviously, you can't, and logically (at least using YOUR logic), you have no intelligence. Now, prove me wrong!

    And thus goes the atheist's argument against the existence of God!

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    It's written all over their faces that their ghosts are not in fact real. We basically already know that today, they just won't admit it, hence the "game" the "believers" are playing.

    The realists actually won this argument decades ago with the spread of psychology. They have no credibility in the mainstream. It's a cult.

    Don't bother arguing with people bad enough to take televangelists seriously. They're sick and anti-realist, as their answers show.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Probably as many times as we have to explain to you that Faith is not something you can provide evidence for. If it were, it would be called Fact.


    Whisperer - we accept personal testimony all the time in the judicial system. And society does look to books (or worse, wikipedia) for validation all the time. We accept that Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor from the books we read - not independent review of the evidence. That you choose to ignore the evidence as presented in theological texts is a failing on your part, not the books.

  • 10 years ago

    How about considering that the "burden of proof" when it is applied to things where you don't have a video tape or something like that must be the type of proof used in a courtroom to prove a case when you don't have any eyewitnesses or a video tape or something like that?

    The resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a powerful proof of the existence of God. So what happened when a renowned legal scholar set himself up as a prosecuting attorney determined to prove that the resurrection never happened?

    Here's the beginning of a long legal argument based upon the rules of evidence that are accepted in a courtroom setting.

    Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

    Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.


    In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Who determines which claims are "extraordinary," and thus subject to the burden of proof? Are "extraordinary" claims ones that you don't believe?

    I've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that the burden of proof generally falls on the person making a positive claim. "Extraordinary" implies something that falls outside the experience of most people. A sighting of Bigfoot would be extraordinary, even though Bigfoot is not thought to be a supernatural creature. But most people DO experience what they believe to be God or the Divine. The fact that you do not doesn't make such claims extraordinary. What does?

  • 10 years ago

    The same thing might be said of the Theory of Evolution. A "preponderence of evidence" does not constitute a proof for the theory (which remains yet unproven.). In science, "Scientific Method" is the basis of proving a theory to be fact.

    From the point of view of a Christian, I cannot convince you of anything, unless your mind is open to things on a spiritual plane. The opposite is true for trying to get Christians to believe in evolution, but here, by scientific method's own definition, and by which all of science seems to scream support, proof is lacking. Therefore, we are justified in our doubt, while evolutionists lack an openness of mind.

  • 10 years ago

    I'll make this as plain and clear as I can:

    Your proof is just detailed, widely accepted explanations, or guesses as to how events happened or didn't. What you seem to forget is that they are simple theories, guesses, and explanations. You haven't experienced them, therefore you can not validate or null them. You have to take their word for it. Now do they have more circumstantial evidence? Sure. But the fact remains is that you can not personally confirm it to be fact. You have to accept that its sound, and seems correct. We don't. We have direct confirmation from (*and when you have it you will agree) the most sound and correct source there is.

  • I Know
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    Romans 1:20 "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;"

    Meaning, on judgment day you will not be able to use the excuse that there is not proof of God.

    Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence.

    You cannot say that there is no evidence for God since all evidence would need to be known to show that there is none.

  • 10 years ago

    It's so sad that it burdens you to have to explain something to Christians who are not looking for your explanations. Faith, as you need to be reminded, is the belief in the evidence of things unseen. I don't demand you believe what I believe; Jesus asked us to proselytize, but not to harangue. If you won't listen, that's up to you (and I will not be repeating it to you, personally).

    The proof should be in the doing

    Source(s): Praying now.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.