(February 6, 2022 at 10:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This makes a lot of sense to me. We assume that when an accusation is being made, the accused person has something to lose from the situation. There may be punishment, a loss of reputation, etc. Therefore it would be unjust to accept the accusation without sufficient evidence. That's why it's courtroom procedure.
I think that burden of proof has a place outside the courtroom. Perhaps in any instance where coercion or personal loss is involved (like in the courtroom, which is why those procedures are in place there). It also may play a role in what I am "obligated" to accept as true for argument's sake... which is why it features in so many internet debates.
But, if the true answer to something (like God's existence) is unknown, we don't prove anything one way or another by placing the burden of proof on one party or another. It's an issue that needs to be discussed and explored. We need to examine relevant arguments and see how strong (or weak) they are.
