Burden of Proof

[Esquilax]

So no one so far has A problem with that definition, or even clearly stated that by that definition "burden of proof" is by that definition is an axiom, or even seriously challenged my contention that it is not by that definition so far. The feeling I get is that most atheist want it taken as an axiom it practice whether it is an axiom or not. I'm going to leave it another while to give others a chance to contribute before I attempt to move the conversation further to the logical implications of this in the debates we tend to be involved in.

It's more an issue of use, than one of words. Axiom or not, you've got to consider the alternative: if the burden of proof doesn't fall on the claimant, then by necessity it either falls on nobody at all, or onto everyone else. If it falls on nobody, then what's the use? And why would it ever fall to everyone else to prove every crazy claim made wrong? Argument simply cannot operate that way: if it did, then I could create another god, just as unfalsifiable as the christian one, simply to negate the existence of other gods, without needing to prove it.

Logic requires that evidence back up a claim, rather than refute every other claim. Ideally, it has both, but it requires the former.

Whether you or anyone else sees fit to deem it an axiom or not, the real question is the truth or utility of the claim.