Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

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?

I believe the answer i gave to a previous post when replying to the claim that my logic would force me to believe any claim made and the the usual flying spagetti monster was raised again ( even after me informing someone before that it doesn't exist anymore because I ate it )

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

You need to read (any) of my explanations again. The issue, is that if a claimant does not support their own claims they do not have a valid argument (they have not accepted/met the burden of proof), if they insist that another must disprove their claim - they do not have a valid argument(they have shifted the burden of proof). It's an issue of using logical fallacies...and this is all that the shorthand phrase "burden of proof/shifting the burden of proof" means.........

If you're having trouble with this, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we attempt to leverage logic or reason.

I just can't take it as valid ; and to avoid the charge of spamming; i will no longer reply to anyone wishes me to accept I have the burden of proof without providing proof and ask them to understand that my non answering of their post is to be seen as a statement that I must referr you back to the post I made earlier, in fact the very one you have copied.