Burden of Proof

A popular pseudo-intellectual copout of the anti-theists is that they have no burden of proof whatsoever because they don’t assert anything. They claim that they simply lack sufficient evidence of God. This is utter poppycock because, firstly, no level of evidence would be sufficient because they ignore that which surrounds them every day in creation itself. Second, they most certainly do assert something when they vociferously deny the existence of God or Jesus, or the authenticity of Scripture, etc.

It is just as easy (and inane) for us to deny that Washington was president of the United States by eliminating any US documentations as biased and made-up mythology created 100 years later. Anyone making novel outlandish claims has just as much, if not a greater, burden of proof than those defending previously universally accepted facts of history.

If they want to compare hypotheses to see which is more rational and supported by reason and facts, the discussion is worthwhile. However, if they only wish to deny everything presented without offering any counterevidence, then you are merely throwing pearls to the swine.

For further development of this theme, go to “Apologetics (& Introduction to Genesis)” found at https://rumble.com/vmmqgf-apologetics-and-introduction-to-genesis.html.