In modern-day discussions on the existence of God, a frequently asked question is: Who bears the burden of proof? Is it the believer who asserts God exists, or the one who denies it? The answer rests on logic, history, and innate human psychology.
Redefining the Burden of Proof
It's commonly assumed the burden of proof falls on the person making a positive claim. However, in reality, the burden actually lies with the one who challenges the apparent or established norm. When something is generally accepted or intuitively understood, the onus is on the disrupter to justify their claim.
Consider this: If someone enters a city and claims the water is poisoned, while it has always been accepted as safe, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. If, on the other hand, the water is widely presumed poisoned, and someone asserts it's safe, the burden lies on them. In both cases, the form of the claim-–regardless of it being positive or negative—is less important than the fact that the claimant is challenging the general presumption or accepted norm. No one is expected to prove otherwise unless a valid reason arises to doubt it.
Shouldn't we apply the same criteria to the question of God's existence? As historically, naturally, and logically, it is the denier, not the believer, who challenges the status quo across these domains.
To fully justify what is being claimed here, let's first explore these domains a little vis-a-vis the existence of God.
Historical and Logical Belief in God
1. A Historical Norm:
Belief in a divine being is neither a recent development nor a fringe idea. It has been a near-universal feature of human societies across time and cultures. From ancient civilizations to the modern era, belief in a higher power has profoundly influenced laws, governance, culture, and moral frameworks. Indeed, throughout recorded history, widespread societal atheism has been a rare anomaly, primarily emerging as a significant social movement only in more recent centuries. This pervasive historical consistency underscores the deeply ingrained nature of belief within the human experience, forming the bedrock upon which countless civilizations have built their understanding of the world and their place within it.
2. Innate Disposition (Fitrah):
This widespread belief is not merely inherited through culture but emanates from a natural disposition toward the divine. In Islamic theology, this is called fitrah—part of which is an inclination that intuitively leads to the recognition of the Creator, leading on to seek His revelations, if indeed it has not been inhibited by inhibiting factors۔
Findings from developmental studies within children, including work found in the Oxford Studies in the Psychology of Religion and studies by Olivera Petrovich, indicate that children intuitively believe in purposeful design and a transcendent cause. Even without religious instruction, they tend not to default to atheism but rather to forms of rudimentary theism. These studies suggest that denial of God is not the natural starting point, but rather a deviation from these innate cognitive tendencies.
Justin L. Barrett's Research on Children's Theistic Tendencies: Barrett, a prominent cognitive scientist primarily associated with the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, conducted extensive research on children’s cognitive development and psychological behaviour. The research indicates a strong predisposition to cognitive biases that point to theistic belief (e.g., agency detection, teleology). According to this study atheism is certainly not the intuitive default.
His studies, which often involved cross-cultural samples from various countries (e.g., studies referenced in his 2012 book "Born Believers"), also reveal that children instinctively attribute purpose and design to the world around them. For instance, children often perceive natural objects like rivers and mountains as existing for specific purposes, suggesting an inherent bias toward seeing the world as ‘intentionally designed’. Barrett also notes that children tend to ascribe superhuman qualities to the supreme deity, such as omniscience and immortality, even before fully grasping these concepts in humans. This implies that the concept of a supreme being with extraordinary attributes emerges naturally in children's cognition.
Dr. Olivera Petrovich's Cross-Cultural Findings: Dr. Olivera Petrovich, a psychologist at the University of Oxford's Department of Experimental Psychology, carried out cross-cultural studies that further support the notion of an innate belief in a creator. In her research, notably including studies from the early 2000s onwards (e.g., her 2000 publication comparing Japanese and UK children's explanations), she discovered that many Japanese preschoolers—children raised in a predominantly non-theistic culture—attributed the existence of natural objects to a creator deity, despite minimal or no exposure to religious teachings. When asked about the origins of entities like trees and rivers, a significant number of these children responded with answers that indicated a spontaneous inclination toward theistic explanations.
These findings challenge the assertion that belief in God is purely a result of cultural indoctrination. Instead, they suggest that theism aligns with our natural cognitive tendencies. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that it is the skeptic who challenges this natural disposition regarding the existence of God and, consequently, bears the burden of proof to justify their departure from this innate human inclination.
Logic, Testimony, and the Human Way of Knowing
There are those who argue on the basis of pure empirical observation, with statements such as: "I cannot believe in God because I've never seen Him." While superficially strong, such objections are philosophically weak and logically superficial. This is primarily because human beings don't operate purely on what they can see. In fact, the vast majority of our beliefs are based on logic, inference, and testimony.
As a way to counter such arguments one only needs to ask such individuals whether or not they believe in their 20th-generation ancestor? The answer will surely be a definite yes—even without a photograph or physical evidence of that forebear. This conviction arises purely from logical inference, which, in such contexts, serves as good as, in fact weightier than, their standard ‘evidence’. This illustrates that our understanding of 'facts' extends beyond what is solely scientifically proven, as much of our accepted knowledge is based on reasoned deduction.
A similar question that can be posed is: ‘Do you believe in historical events or places beyond your direct experience?’ Again, the belief rests on indirect sources and reasoned trust.
This highlights that a significant portion of our functioning in the world depends not on direct evidence but on inferential and testimonial knowledge. So why should this principle be suspended when it comes to the existence of God?
The Field vs. the City: A Compelling Analogy
Consider two distinct scenarios:
The Empty Field: Two men stand in an empty, level field. If one claims an architect or engineer was involved at some point here, the burden of proof would rightly be upon them.
The Developed City: Now, consider these same two men standing amidst intricately designed buildings, bridges, and machinery in a developed city. If one denies the existence of an architect or engineer here, the burden of proof rests squarely upon them.
As these scenarios illustrate, the burden of proof undeniably shifts based on the context. In the first case, it falls on the claimant of a designer; in the second, it falls on the one denying design.
This is how human logic naturally operates. When faced with clear evidence of intelligent design, it's the denial—not the affirmation—of a designer that requires justification. Likewise, when we observe the complexity, order, and fine-tuning of the universe—from DNA and galaxies to moral awareness and consciousness—the claim that no intelligent cause exists is the one demanding proof.
The Illusion of "Neutrality" in Denial
Modern discourse often frames atheism as the "neutral" position and theism as the "positive claim." But this framing is misleading.
Theism isn't making a wild leap—it aligns with history, psychology, and human nature.
Atheism, in contrast, makes a substantial metaphysical claim: that all of reality, with its intelligence, energy, morality, and order, is an accident or the product of blind processes.
This is far from a neutral stance; it is a bold philosophical assertion that must be argued for, not merely assumed.
The Fish in the Tank: On the Limits of Perception
Imagine a fish in a tank within a living room. No matter how intelligent the fish may be, we can be certain that it couldn't comprehend the world beyond its tank. It might see shadows, but it would never attempt to grasp the nature of the house, the people, or the city beyond.
We humans, in many ways, are like that fish. Our universe is the tank. We are bound by space, time, and limited perception. And yet—against all expectations—we constantly ponder what lies outside the universe. We ask questions about the Creator, the origins and meaning of life, and what awaits us after death.
Why should this be so? If we were purely material creatures bound to a material world, the thought of something beyond should never even occur to us. But it not only occurs—it often dominates our consciousness. Even those who wish to deny God feel compelled to address and refute the idea repeatedly. One wonders, why this obsession with something that, according to them, "doesn't exist"?
While some propose explanations for religious belief such as "evolutionary hangover" or "psychological projection," these theories remain insufficient to explain the full phenomenon of human consciousness, intellect, design and spiritual seeking, amongst numerous other aspects.
When Evidence Is Felt, Not Sought
Proof is often unnecessary when a person confronts serious realities—such as the experience of intense pain—even in the absence of material evidence.
Consider a rock striking the back of someone’s head. With no visible indication to themselves or others, the resulting intense pain serves as direct, undeniable proof for the injured person. The sheer force of this experience compels an unshakable certainty in its reality.
Belief in God is a truth deeply felt by both the conscious mind and the human collective conscience and experience—a reality difficult to avoid. One must make a deliberate effort to reject this belief and adopt atheism; the reverse demands no such struggle. This, in itself, can be seen as evidence that belief in God is a natural and innate inclination of humanity. And this is evidenced by studies and research, as explained earlier.
If one finds themselves not conforming to this trend; i.e., a natural inclination to believe in the Divine Creator, this may possibly be because of the modern push towards atheism, through education, media and similar institutions.
Conclusion: A Rethink on the Burden of Proof
The existence of God is not an outlandish belief requiring defenders to stand trial. It is the intuitive, historical, and rational starting point for much of humanity.
It is not the theist who must explain why they believe in God—but the atheist who must explain why not. Why reject what has been accepted across cultures and centuries? Why discard what our inner nature affirms and what logic supports?
Until the skeptic can provide a coherent, evidence-based reason for denying what has always been known, it is they—not the believer—who bear the burden of proof.
Recommended Reading:
Can Something Come from Nothing?