Answer

Helen.

All known arguments for God's existence are bogus.
(Those who argue for the existence of God bear the burden of proof.)
God does not exist.

Drake.

Apart from Helen's burden of proof argument, there is no positive argument for the nonexistence of God.
(Those who argue against the existence of God bear the burden of proof.)
God does exist.

Drake is giving an opposing argument. (In order for him to counter Helen's argument he would have to come up with some reason why non-believers in some specific god would bear the burden of proof.)

Helen's argument has the logical structure of a good burden of proof argument. If it is true that none of the arguments offered for the existence of God are logically good, then it follows that the most rational conclusion that can be drawn about God is that she does not exist. This is because believers in any supernatural entity, like Vishnu or Casper the friendly ghost, always bear the burden of proof.

Drake's argument is a classic example of a false burden of proof. While he is of course entitled to believe whatever he chooses to believe, he is not entitled to assert that the lack of any argument apart from the burden of proof argument proves that God exists. At the most, he can reasonably claim that he does not accept burden of proof arguments as compelling, and thus does not accept that the nonexistence of God has been proved. (Of course, such considerations also apply to the nonexistence of Vishnu and the nonexistence of Casper the friendly ghost.)

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: