Which is more logical, to assume all unproven claims are false, or that all unproven claims are true? By your logic, all gods ever claimed to exist must exist, because no one can prove they don't
Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.
If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?
Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.
If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?
