Hi christians! On whom does the burden of proof lay: christian or atheist? [Spirituality & Religion]

@hippyjoe1955:

How is "i find the evidence for god to be uncompelling" a theory?
If i make the claim that bigfoot exists, is it not on me to then prove that he does?

@MetalGreymon: You have no proof. Therefore it remains a theory.

@hippyjoe1955:

So if i make the claim that bigfoot exists, is it not on me to then prove that he does?

Just answer that question honestly.

@MetalGreymon: It is your claim and you have to make it sure in your own mind. I don't have to share your mindset regarding things that can never be proved.

@hippyjoe1955:

So your answer to the who has the burden of proof is "just convince yourself" ?

@MetalGreymon: It is basically up to you to affirm what you believe. There is no way to objectively prove once and for all. However in proving one side or the other takes examining both sides without bigotry or prejudice. A very difficult task.

@hippyjoe1955:

Well we're not really discussing whether or not god can be proven to exist one way or the other.
We're discussing who should be responsible for trying to prove their position

@MetalGreymon: The fact is nobody has to prove anything to anyone else.

@hippyjoe1955:

Nobody HAS to do anything....except in a debate.
And people do debate whether or not god exists and that means that one side or the other has a burden of proof.
So which is it?

@MetalGreymon: The pro side in any debate has the burden of proof.

@hippyjoe1955:

So then we agree.

@MetalGreymon: If you say that evolution is the answer as a proposition then it is incumbent on you to prove it.

@hippyjoe1955:

We're not talking about evolution here.

You've stated that the pro-side of any debate has the burden of proof.
Is the claim that god exists a pro claim?

@MetalGreymon: I mentioned evolution as an example.

@hippyjoe1955:

You've stated that the pro-side of any debate has the burden of proof.
Is the claim that god exists a pro claim?

@MetalGreymon: Yes just as the claim that evolution explains our existence is the pro side. Both are the same.

@hippyjoe1955:

Ah so we do agree!
The claim that god exists is a pro argument. Therefor it is the responsibility of the theist to prove that god exists, not the atheist's responsibility to prove he doesn't.

@MetalGreymon: Ah but you see most on this site are atheists offering a pro evolution view point. It is then incumbent on them to provide proof.

@hippyjoe1955: What does evolution have to do with this?

1. There's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be deists)

2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)

3. In any case, there's no compelling necessity to even make the postulation in the first place. besides which, it explains nothing, and tries to merely explain everything away.

4. Therefore, I have no gods.

No claim, so no burden of proof.

In what way is evolution germane to that?

@hippyjoe1955:

Ah but you see, that argument holds merit only in a thread wherein evolution is being espoused.
That is not the case here. Here, in this thread, you have agreed that "god exists" is a positive argument that must therefor be proven by the advocate.

Even proving evolution does not disprove god. The theist's burden to prove their assertion that god exists has literally nothing to do with an evolutionist's responsibility to prove evolution.

You cannot pretend that you don't have to prove your assertion simply because you feel someone else hasn't proved their unrelated assertion.