(January 7, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Which is more logical, to assume all unproven claims are false, or that all unproven claims are true? By your logic, all gods ever claimed to exist must exist, because no one can prove they don'tI accept you ask valid questions but its not an obvious answer and I have already shown that the french civil legal system operates on the opposite maxim so the answer its obvious doesn't qualify as a proof.
Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.
If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?
No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.