(January 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I can allow them both to present their cases without worrying about burden of proof and decide the outcome based on that without giving one side of the argument any handicap by default.
Let's look at it this way: Someone makes a claim, and proceeds to provide an argument in support of that claim. A second person comes by and provides an arguement that completely dismantles the first arguement. The second person cannot, however, prove that the first person's conclusion is incorrect because they are claiming something unfalsifiable (i.e. there is an invisible and intangible flying unicorn in the room). Which side has the better case if neither side can prove anything, but one side can always dismantle all arguments made by the other?
