(February 16, 2022 at 10:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(February 16, 2022 at 10:02 pm)OCavalry Wrote: No need to as that's not how the burden of proof works.
The statement should always be there is a monster - which carries the burden of proof. If there is no monster that is known and/or seen etc; there's no need to claim that there is no monster, no need to prove anything. Otherwise infinite unprovable claims can be made about any random concept of imagination.
We had a recent thread about how the burden of proof works.
Some people seem to think it's a law, as if it was handed down by Moses, or is some kind of law of nature. Others disagree. It may not be as self-evident as it seems.
I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.
Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.
