I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For a theism to be more than an idea, you must provide evidence beyond religious scripture and personal experiences.
ahh synapses you resort to name calling...i think we know who truly looks ignorant here
also...i just quoted richard dawkins...so he must be dumb....
lhvinny
Favorite Answer
It depends on who is making the claim.
Most theists say, for certain, that there is a god. This is a claim and thus has a burden of proof.
Some theists say they believe there is a god, but isn't sure about its properties or what it is. This does not give them a burden of proof since they do not claim knowledge on the subject.
Most atheists say that they are unconvinced that there is a god, but do not rule out the possibility. This does not give them a burden of proof.
If an atheist says, for certain, that there is no god, or a certain god does not exist, then they have a burden of proof since they are making a claim about a god or set of gods.
?
human beings many times corrupt the word "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" into "absence of information isn't information of absence". The latter of path, isn't genuine. With each and every time you seek for some thing and fail to discover any incidences of it, you would be able to cut back the possibility of it, yet never to 0. the burden of evidence does not lie with the unfavorable declare. it incredibly is the place Russell's teapot is accessible in. If I say that there is a teapot orbiting the sunlight, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, too small too be seen via a telescope, and it is been there in view that earlier we had spaceflight means, that declare has a burden of evidence. The declare that the teapot does not exist does not carry any burden of evidence. You left an significant and easy assertion out of the middle: "i do no longer think that God exists." enable us to be taught the declare. No reason is given. they have made no affirmative declare of nonexistence. there is no burden of evidence. to that end, nonetheless, there are multiple believers who will say that the guy easily believes yet is in denial. there is no information to refute that declare, yet there are some who will. the burden of evidence argument, as atheists use it incredibly is commonly valid. The unfavorable burden of evidence used via theists is commonly no longer valid.
?
"Who does the burden of proof lay with, theists or atheists?"
BOTH!
The theist claims there is a God, which is a statement of fact as they believe the facts to be, so the theist should be able to explain why they believe thus.
The atheist claims there is NO God, which is a statement of fact as they believe the facts to be, so the theist should be able to explain why they believe thus.
The agnostic claims there is no way to know whether there is a God or not, so they should be able to explain why that think there is no way to know.
It happens the evidence is on the side of belief in God.
Anonymous
If you went to court accused of a crime, you would not be found guilty if you could not prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove you guilty, they are making the positive claim.
The burden is on the theists. They make the positive claims.
@ One Brave Mouse - Your dishonesty is showing.
@ Matthew - So is yours.
Anonymous
Both... "extraordinary" by definition are things that don't happen everyday. If god is then that happens everyday so that wouldn't be "extraordinary" by definition. Likewise if there God isn't that would happen every day and would not be "extraordinary"
The burden of proof is on the person who is making a claim and both atheism and theism is making a claim. I haven't yet heard a logical reason why there cannot be a God.