Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but are you asking me to prove that you can't use a logical fallacy and retain a valid argument?

in reality I don't want to pass any burden of proof ; i just don't see it as relevant in a healthy discussion and exchange of ideas in the topics we tend to discuss because common sense tell us the proving or disproving the existance of a Transendental God is impossable and to ask either side to accept the burden of proof is to ask them to accept this impossable task.
If it were possible we would not be having this discussion. The fact is very intelligent people on both sides of this have all been able to hold to their belief or lack of belief in spite of burden of proof and were able to make up their own minds up without referencing the concept until afterwards. Some very notable people who were champions of one side or other have changed sides without burden of proof.

it is true that in many of the systems ,but not all as I have shown 1 that it is generally accepted , but that is my point accepted (not proven). But it does not have to be accepted especially if neither party is actually trying to actually prove a claim.

I can understand the idea that if you are going to make a claim that is going to have a significant impact on someones else life in the real world it is reasonable that the burden of proof be established if by acting on that claim changes that may be seen by one party to be detrimental to another, burden of proof may be an issue that needs addressing but as I have already shown it can be addressed in more ways than 1. But really is it of so much importance on this forum that it can't be put aside to facilitate a more lively and interesting discussion, are we really expecting life changing events to be caused by our banter.

AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

---

Burden of proof has been explained to me at length but has not been proved; God has been explained to you Guys at length but you say it has not been proved. I take your point but you don't take mine.

I must have missed that part... what did you want to be proved?

The proof of god we require is simple. If such an entity exists and interacts with this planet, we require some measure of such interaction which would be at odds with all known physics.... I don't know if that would be enough, but it would be a start... warm fuzzy feelings and other mental representations are invalid as proof... See? simple!

see post number 49