Burden Of Proof 101

From time to time Village Atheists & other Skeptics will allege that because a (Christian) atheist is making a positive truth claim that God exists the theist carries the onus to prove their truth claim while the Village Atheist/Skeptic bears no such responsibility with respect to justifying their own truth claim.  That’s not at all true & can easily be disproven by way of analogy. 

Imagine sitting in your home in the dark of night & a shaft of light appears and moves through the room.   You also hear the sound of one or more voices telling you not to be afraid & that God is watching over you.   This happens two or 3 more times, &, just to be certain you aren’t cracking up, you talk to a psychiatrist who listens to you & suggests it must have been an elaborate prank or even that you are lying.   He then writes you a prescription for an anti-psychotic medication & sends you on your way.   Two or 3 days later, it happens again.  

Notice that the psychiatrist essentially did a math equation in his head & concluded that you were or are delusional.   He had no evidence whatsoever.  Instead, he appealed to his bare “Skepticism(TM)!”which substituted for hard evidence to the contrary relative to your claim.   

That’s precisely what is happening when the Village Atheist/Skeptic asserts that the (Christian) Theist bears the onus to discharge his or her own burden of proof whereas the Village Atheist/Skeptic bears no such responsibility.  Yes, they do, because if not, then the bare assertion of Metaphysical Naturalism or their Personal Skepticism doesn’t have to be justified even though they are deploying it as if one or both is a sufficient moral warrant that relieves them or their duty to mount a coherent argument for their truth claim.

Some will even go so far as to analogize between an illusory object like a teapot or one or more imaginary people in the room with them, as if it is self-evident that the claim is absurd, ergo; the claimant doesn’t have to justify their belief — but what they don’t seem to understand is that, given our present understanding of the way reality works, the existence of such objects seems unlikely even from a theistic point of view.   However when we are talking about the existence of God, God is fundamentally unlike a teapot or an imaginary person who is a nonmaterial human being.  God is utterly different. — a triune spirit with no material essence, no material substance,  sui generis in every way, a se, autotheos, & absolute who is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, goodness, & truth whose existence defines & affects the very nature of reality itself.   As such, the analogy doesn’t fit.  

O LORD, Hear our prayer!