Style Switcher

Predefined Colors

Guess who has the burden of proof

Guess who has the burden of proof

Posted in Frank Turek - Islam


John Murphy - posted on June 10, 2020 7:24 pm

I bet that your water bottle does not believe in Santa either.
Why do we Atheists have to prove anything? It's you believers in the supernatural that claim that their book has some basis in reality. I've read it. It is not convincing. Why should I have to prove that you supernatural being dose not exist? Please tell me, How can I prove that to you satisfaction? Can I use that method to prove that Zeus dose not exist? Please enlighten me.
Does Theism have the best explanation of reality? You mean the one that says that an incorporeal, supernatural being magiced existence into existence from nothing? Please, I'm far to old for fairy tales.
Just because Science cannot give you an answer that you are not happy with, dose not mean that your god did it. Do I really have to remind you what a "God of the Gaps Fallacy" is.
This kind of nonsense will work well enough upon your devoted fan base, but it just makes you sound like a fool or a snake oil salesman.

Christopher Hitchens made you look a fool when you "debated him". He's dead now. You may think that you can use his absence to press onward with this tired old hick apologetic nonsense. Think Again.
You Still Have All Your Work Ahead of You. Please supply some credible evidence that your supernatural being "Did It" and not someone else's Supernatural Being.

CNCmachiningisfun - posted on June 10, 2020 7:51 pm

U R pathetic!

David Boson - posted on June 10, 2020 8:12 pm

Why do you care what I think. I dont care what you think.

Lawrence Eason - posted on June 10, 2020 10:56 pm

No Mr. Turek, you are off base:

1. The burden of proof is on the claim. Plain and simple
2. What best explains reality is evidence. Do you have evidence for a god? No? Then until you do we will not assume a god

freddan6fly - posted on June 10, 2020 11:43 pm

You should study philosophy so that you can learn about who has the burden of proof. For instance the one giving a positive claim has the burden of proof. This video just show you have not made a coherent thought about the subject.

Johnnie Angel - posted on June 11, 2020 12:42 am


SO GUYS WE DID IT - posted on June 11, 2020 1:55 am

did he compare a bottle water to a fully organized human 👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻:O

Swlightdreamer1985 - posted on June 11, 2020 5:29 am

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the POSITIVE claim to something in reality. In this instance the burden of proof is on the person claiming something EXISTS or HAPPENED, not that it doesn't exist or happen. Prove to me that universe farting pixies don't exist.

Swlightdreamer1985 - posted on June 11, 2020 5:37 am

I'm sorry for the second comment but… Did you forget how criminal investigations actually work? No officer stands at a crime scene and says, "Ok, I think this guy did it." That's not how any of that works… It's not up to the defense to prove the innocence of the defendant, it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

Syrnian - posted on June 11, 2020 7:47 am

I do not have a belief that a god exists. Not having something is lacking it.
If there is insufficient evidence to determining that X did it, you cannot say that X did it. One does not need an alternative to say there is insufficient evidence to determine that X did it. In a murder trial you do not have to have an alternate suspect for the defendant to be found not guilty.
I do not have to explain anything. I am not convinced that a god exists. Anything beyond that is not atheism.
And now time for gish gallop.
The universe just is. Demonstrate that the universe requires a reason for it to exist.
Tuning must be demonstrated, let alone fine tuning.
Must demonstrate that there are objective moral laws.
Life comes from the universe.
Laws of logic are man made. All laws are man made. They are our descriptions of our observations.
Must demonstrate that Jesus existed and rose from the dead.
Consciousness is a consequence of a large developed physical brain.

Adar Winter Dror - posted on June 11, 2020 8:08 am

What a horribly poor answer by Turek.
1. Just because an explanation is really good or better than others has nothing to do with whether its true or not.
Besides the truth, do you know what OTHER types of explanations are really good? Lies! Also, mistakes.
We can all make explanations to everything around us that are really good. We can all provide really good physically sustainable explanations to the origin of life, like aliens, or fairies, or the egyptian gods. Do you know how to tell the difference between good explanations that are false and good explanations that are true? You use evidence.
Lets use Tureks analogy to the test:
2. Detective no.1 sees a dead woman and say "she was shot in the head by a 9mm and this family owns a gun, which I cant find on the scene, therefore – the husband killed her and ran with the murder weapon. BOOM! SOLVED!"
Detective no.2 says: That's not enough evidence to get a conviction in court. can you prove that theory using evidence?"
Detective no.1: Do you have a better explanation?
Detective no.2: Not yet. I need to investigate further.
Detective no.1: Than you dont. so my suspect is guilty! BOOM! SOLVED! send the sucker to jail, simply because my explanation is solid.
see? that's not how argument go. Detective no.2 doesnt need to provide evidence to why the husband didnt kill his wife for the judge or any reasonable man to not just take detective 1's theory.
3. You can ask any atheist phycisist how the universe came to be and they will all probably say "We dont have enough evidence to say, and we might never will. we have ideas supported by math and simulations, but they are a bit hard to test at the moment so we don't really know".
Ask any theist, physicist or not, to explain how the universe came to be and they will say "I have no doubt its god".
4. Turek is right that anybody that has an explanation has the burden of proof, but atheists usually say "we are not sure". The origins of the universe or of time or of all life or the consciousness are all unknown for sure. There is a lot we do know about these questions, but those who spent their lives studying those will say "we are not sure about everything. we are still learning" with modesty and an understanding of the unknowns. the reason for that modesty is that in order to claim you KNOW something is have solid hypothesis with falsifiable conditions, evidence that cant be interpreted in other ways, experiments that can be replicated and demonstrated, favorable peer reviews, etc. the burden of proof for science and research is heavy and there are a lot of conditions that need to be met.
It takes a theist to say they know the answer to any of those questions, even though the condition to claim knowledge hasn't been met.

Topher - posted on June 11, 2020 8:22 am

Whoever makes the claim.

Topher - posted on June 11, 2020 8:23 am

A skeptic in one set of beliefs is a true believer in another.

Luiz Eduardo - posted on June 11, 2020 8:28 am

Nicely spoken

Philip Manousakis - posted on June 11, 2020 10:51 am

I disagreed with every single point he made.

sparkyy0007 - posted on June 11, 2020 11:03 am

Trust me just this once, chicken soup didn't make a chicken.
Can't believe we live in an age where this must be said…

TheJimtanker - posted on June 11, 2020 3:22 pm

Ahh, shifting of the burden of proof. Last refuge for the ignorant.

rdy2 run - posted on June 11, 2020 3:42 pm

Also what about the many near death experiences that people have.surley that is worth something right.

adfasd - posted on June 11, 2020 9:57 pm

Atheism is a religion as abstinence is a sex position.

Mrov - posted on June 12, 2020 9:11 am


Snake Man448 - posted on June 12, 2020 2:11 pm

Turek's fanboys trying to applying his tactics in the comments and only looking like arrogant idiots out of it shows up Turek as a charlatan.

Like, if you told me that you went out bowling with Queen Elizabeth, Mike Tyson and Johnny Depp, and then I don't believe you, am I supposed to say that those three were actually with me at the supposed time of the gathering? or am I to waste my time tracking their activity, because you get to do or say whatever you want without justifying it?

atam mardes - posted on June 12, 2020 3:33 pm

It takes a lot of arrogance to not only make the extraordinary claim that there is an invisible man in the sky who gave birth to itself via a virgin birth, but also to assert that the burden of disproving this extraordinary claim is on those who are not gullible enough to believe it.

Dream Way - posted on June 12, 2020 4:52 pm

That thumbnail 🤣

dan b - posted on June 12, 2020 5:00 pm

the burden of proof is on the person that claims something does exist. so that was easy.

Alex Gibbs - posted on June 12, 2020 9:51 pm

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!
George Carlin

David Vasconcellos - posted on June 13, 2020 1:48 am

The crime scene metaphor Turek brings up is good. But he posits that the atheist must suggest another suspect. I'm not seeing how this is true. You can reject the hypothesis that another person brings up if there is poor evidence to support their claim and still not know the answer to 'who committed the murder.' I don't understand why he suggests otherwise. He says, "Does that make me a good detective." As far as I'm concerned that's neither here nor there. I need well grounded evidence. The absence of which requires that I search for a better explanation.

Practical Faith - posted on June 13, 2020 10:35 am

How do we identify who generally has the burden of proof in any particular argument? Virtually every society in recorded history believed in a god of some kind. Does that at all impact where the burden of proof lies?

Post a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.