by Doug Fattig

Created on: July 21, 2008   Last Updated: July 22, 2008

1. Burden of proof
The "burden of proof" principle implies that only the party trying to prove something must provide proof to establish their position, while the other side simply finds fault with that proof. It would be a sound principle for an agnostic, since he claims to know nothing, but is a little trickier for an atheist who knows that God does not exist, and therefore is obligated to prove nothing in order to be right. Proving nothing could be difficult if what was meant by "proving nothing" was that one must prove that "nothing" does in fact exist. And that is exactly what the theist must prove, since there is no God. The atheist, on the other hand, must prove nothing, in that he truly has nothing to prove. No God, no ethics, no basis for being or reality, no epistemology. In fact, it can even be necessary to avoid proving any "something," lest you could give the theist a hand up. Though having no proof or basis for knowing makes any argument difficult, particularly if you have to prove nothing, the theist, may still have the more difficult task. He has a clear basis for reality, an epistemology, with which he must prove that nothing does not exist. To do this he must refute the basis of the atheistic argument, which is nothing, and atheistic proofs which are a little less than that. So then, the theist refutes nothing with something that is really nothing, while the atheist proves nothing with nothing which the theist thinks is really something- while the atheist thinks it is nothing, with the end result that while the theist thinks the atheistic argument is really something, he refuses to accept it, and the atheist, trying to prove nothing, refuses to accept the theist's argument because it proves nothing.

2. Why didn't God do it the other way?
This is not really an argument so much as it is a ploy. Whatever way God did something the question can be posed, "why didn't he do it this way" and if he did it "this" way why not "that" way? Though it seems simple, it can be very effective once put into play in a debate or argument. You object to a statement about God's mercy because he sends folks to hell. They parry with "But He also sent his own Son, that man might escape hell." You pari passu with "Why didn't he just not have hell to begin with?" You continue with your, now strengthened, "incompatibility of Gods judgement and mercy" position. They switch to the Lewisian stance, that ultimately all who are in hell have chosen it, and you slash with the

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>