I will quote @gbrooks9 on this one, since he said it much better than I:
“oh, and @T_aquaticus, when it comes to beliefs, a Believer only comes under obligation to provide adequate evidence if he proposes that you should agree with his belief.”
If you profess a faith based belief then that is your belief. I don’t see why anyone would have a burden of proof in that situation.
The only time where a burden of proof would apply, at least how I see it, is if you claimed that God’s existence were supported by scientific evidence and/or logic. As I stated in previous posts, a hypothesis (in the context of this discussion) is a reference to science, so if you aren’t making a scientific claim then there is no need for scientific evidence (i.e. proof beyond a reasonable doubt).[quote=“GJDS, post:99, topic:37310”]
A very long time ago, I found Kant’s discussion of the dialectic in his Critique informative. In mundane terms, human reason can find many reasonable ways to believe God exists, and an equal number of reasons to believe god does not exist.
That goes down a post-modernist path that isn’t very fruitful, IMHO. How do we determine what is reasonable? Is reasonable whatever each one of us deems it to be? Is there a difference between a reasoned position and being convinced something is true?