Burden of Proof

[pocaracas]

So are you saying you believe the statement at the heart of the thread is or is not an axiom yes or no as most of what you wrote will be raised later once we can decide yes or know to the axiom or not.

The negation of the statement can be proved to be absurd, which in turn proves the statement.
If it can be proved, it is not a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy, is it?

[Mark 13:13]

So are you saying you believe the statement at the heart of the thread is or is not an axiom yes or no as most of what you wrote will be raised later once we can decide yes or know to the axiom or not.

The negation of the statement can be proved to be absurd, which in turn proves the statement.
If it can be proved, it is not a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy, is it?

I like things simple is that yes or no?

[Minimalist]

AS I said it is not the definition that is the problem.

Were you to say "there is a leprechaun drinking whiskey out of my shoe" I think I would be rightly in position to say "show me?"

I do not have to provide evidence against your claim - your burden is to support it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess you didn't read the either the quote or the wiki at all. If you demand that someone prove you wrong when you make a claim (this is whats meant by shifting the burden) then you are likely committing a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance. This is crucial, because whoever you're speaking to might not actually know how to prove you wrong- but that won't actually make you right.

[FallentoReason]

I guess you didn't read the either the quote or the wiki at all. If you demand that someone prove you wrong when you make a claim (this is whats meant by shifting the burden) then you are likely committing a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance. This is crucial, because whoever you're speaking to might not actually know how to prove you wrong- but that won't actually make you right.

It's like when atheists whip out all my least favourite arguments about you not being able to prove them wrong that an invisible dragon isn't inhabiting their garage... therefore it exists.

[Mark 13:13]

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.

[FallentoReason]

I think the "burden of proof lies with the one making the claim" ought to be an axiom. Otherwise we can conjure up a plethora of non-existent things into existence simply through our will to claim they exist -- evidence or no evidence.

Does it sound to you like the universe is governed in that manner?

---

Also, think about the implications of that for your belief. You ought to disprove every other god man has thought up of before you can claim yours exists AND is the true god. Are you up to that monumental challenge?

[pocaracas]

The negation of the statement can be proved to be absurd, which in turn proves the statement.
If it can be proved, it is not a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy, is it?

I like things simple is that yes or no?

let me rewrite it, using your definition of axiom:

If it can be proved, it is not an axiom, is it?

[Zen Badger]

If you receive an email from a Nigerian prince claiming to have 25 million dollars but he needs to transfer it into your bank account once you give him your account details, do you just accept what he says or demand he proves it?

[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.