I often hear discussions that attempt to shift the burden of proof. "You can't prove your side either!" 

Here's a conversation I would like to have with someone who argues that all parties have an equal burden of proof.

ME: There is a contract that says you owe me $10,000. It's legally binding so pay up.
THEM: Nonsense. Show it to me.
ME: You can't prove the contract doesn't exist somewhere. In order to verify it doesn't exist, you would have to read every document in the universe.
THEM: I don't care. You have no evidence that it does exist.
ME: Ok, since neither one of us can prove the other wrong, our positions are equal. As an equal compromise you can pay me $5,000. Or are you saying one of our opposing truth claims doesn't carry the same weight? Why is that?

Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

No

Only the person making the claim needs evidence to support the claim.
But I just thought of another example. What if I am known to police and a crime happens in my area. The cops show up to my house and ask where I was at 11:00pm last night?

Why should the burden of proof be on me?

(February 3, 2022 at 6:13 pm)Nachos_of_Nurgle Wrote: I often hear discussions that attempt to shift the burden of proof. "You can't prove your side either!" 

Here's a conversation I would like to have with someone who argues that all parties have an equal burden of proof.

ME: There is a contract that says you owe me $10,000. It's legally binding so pay up.
THEM: Nonsense. Show it to me.
ME: You can't prove the contract doesn't exist somewhere. In order to verify it doesn't exist, you would have to read every document in the universe.
THEM: I don't care. You have no evidence that it does exist.
ME: Ok, since neither one of us can prove the other wrong, our positions are equal. As an equal compromise you can pay me $5,000. Or are you saying one of our opposing truth claims doesn't carry the same weight? Why is that?

Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

A couple of glaring flaws:

-No one claims that all parties have an equal burden of proof.

-It’s a pretty egregious fallacy to demand that someone prove a negative (which is why ‘Prove to me that gods don’t exist’ is a non-starter).

To answer your question, I think it would make for an interest example of how not to argue.

Boru

(February 3, 2022 at 6:21 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Only the person making the claim needs evidence to support the claim.
But I just thought of another example. What if I am known to police and a crime happens in my area. The cops show up to my house and ask where I was at 11:00pm last night?

Why should the burden of proof be on me?

That’s a very good example. No one is required to (or expected to) prove their innocence.

Boru

(February 3, 2022 at 6:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: To answer your question, I think it would make for an interest example of how not to argue.

Boru

I think it's an interesting example of how not to argue that might be instructive to someone who thinks 'you can't prove God isn't real' is a gotcha.

The default position should be, not to believe a claim until such time that the claim has been demonstrated to be true, or likely true, with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.

As David Hume said, "A Wise person proportions their belief to the evidence".

It is completely rational to reject the claim (disbelieve it), until such a time the claim is supported.

The problem is, that so many god believers (and believers in other supernatural claims) seem to think, that when we say, "we do not believe your claim", we are making the opposite claim. My disbelieving the claim that a god exists, does not necessarily mean I am making the claim that a god does not exist.

If I want to take on the burden of proof, I can clam that a god does not exist, but that is not a necessary claim, when debating theists.

Bad illustration, unless you can cough up half a god.

Wasn't this guy here before asking to be paid for proof?

(February 3, 2022 at 6:13 pm)Nachos_of_Nurgle Wrote: Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

No.

---

(February 3, 2022 at 8:26 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Wasn't this guy here before asking to be paid for proof?

Fuck paying for people to 'prove' shit.

I ought to be paid just to think.

And I will. All in good time.