By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Below is an educational conversation between myself and AI. I’ve asked the AI to play the role of an intellectual and honest atheist who’s willing to admit his or her mistakes.
Agnostic Atheist:
As an agnostic atheist who values intellectual honesty, I see the burden of proof as a key concept when discussing God’s existence. The burden of proof always falls on the person making the claim. In the case of God, this means theists who say a deity exists have to provide evidence or arguments to back that claim.
Atheists who outright deny God’s existence also carry a burden of proof for their claim. But many atheists take a different route—they don’t necessarily say God doesn’t exist. Instead, they’re skeptical and ask for solid evidence before they can accept that God exists. I think that’s an intellectually honest approach. It recognizes that we don’t know everything and keeps the door open for new insights.
Ajit Krishna Dasa:
I get what you’re saying, and I agree. An agnostic atheist doesn’t have the burden of proof when it comes to proving God doesn’t exist. But here’s the thing—I think agnostic atheists still have a worldview, and they need to justify that worldview. Even if they don’t include God in their explanations, they’re still working with a framework, and that framework has to stand up to scrutiny. It means they’ve got to carry the burden of proof for their own perspective, like showing how you can explain the world without God in the mix.
Agnostic Atheist:
That’s fair. Agnostic atheists definitely have a worldview, and just because it doesn’t include God doesn’t mean it’s off the hook. If someone claims they can explain the world fully without God, they do have a burden of proof to back that up. They’d need to show how natural, or at least non-theistic, explanations are enough to understand reality without needing a divine creator or cause.
Ajit Krishna Dasa:
But could there ever be a scenario where an agnostic atheist has no burden of proof at all?
Agnostic Atheist:
Sure, imagine an agnostic atheist who takes a super neutral stance. They say, “I don’t know if God exists, and I’m not claiming that God doesn’t exist. I just don’t see enough evidence to believe in a deity.” In that case, they’re not making a strong claim one way or the other. They’re just waiting for more evidence. They wouldn’t have a burden of proof in this situation because they’re not taking a definitive position. They’re staying open and skeptical.
Ajit Krishna Dasa:
Okay, I get that. But even in that case, wouldn’t they still have a burden of proof for their worldview? After all, everyone’s got a worldview, right? That means they’ve got some sort of epistemology (how they know stuff), an ontology (what they think exists), and a moral framework. These are basics for any worldview.
If they’re unsure about God’s existence, their worldview has to be built on something other than God. And if that’s the case, it needs to be justified in another way. They can’t rely on God to explain their worldview, so what’s their foundation? I’d argue they do have a burden of proof there. Would you agree?
Agnostic Atheist:
Yeah, that’s a solid point. If an agnostic atheist has a worldview that excludes God, they’ve got to justify it with other explanations. They’d need to present a coherent way of thinking about knowledge, existence, and morality that doesn’t lean on a divine explanation.
So while they don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist, they still need to support their worldview. That includes explaining how their ideas about reality, knowledge, and ethics hold up without referencing a deity. In that sense, I’d say you’re right—they do have a burden of proof for their worldview.
Ajit Krishna Dasa 
Leave a comment