Burden of Proof

[The Grand Nudger]

in reality I don't want to pass any burden of proof ; i just don't see it as relevant in a healthy discussion and exchange of ideas in the topics we tend to discuss because common sense tell us the proving or disproving the existance of a Transendental God is impossable and to ask either side to accept the burden of proof is to ask them to accept this impossable task.

That's good, because to do so would render whatever argument you offered invalid. That's precisely what makes it relevant. Impossible? See, thats the trouble that making claims like this runs into. Perhaps you're simply incapable, or no one has properly formed the argument. Your inability to do so doesn't make it impossible, in the same way that others inability to do so doesn't make it impossible. Your inability to do so simply betrays your inability to meet the burden of proof.

If it were possible we would not be having this discussion. The fact is very intelligent people on both sides of this have all been able to hold to their belief or lack of belief in spite of burden of proof and were able to make up their own minds up without referencing the concept until afterwards. Both sides and some very notable people who were champions of one side or other have changed sides.

People believe things for which they cannot offer a logical argument. Many people believe (or cease to believe) many things.

it is true that in many of the systems ,but not all as I have shown 1 that it is generally accepted , but that is my point accepted (not proven). But it does not have to be accepted especially if neither party is actually trying to actually prove a claim.

No, it doesn't have to be accepted, you can make invalid arguments all day long, but if you're going to try to prove something (say, the veracity of a claim), you'll have to accept that you cannot do so by means of invalid arguments.You can claim for the sake of claiming all day long, if you like, as well.

I can understand the idea that if you are going to make a claim that is going to have a significant impact on someones else life in the real world it is reasonable that the burden of proof be established if by acting on that claim changes that may be seen by one party to be detrimental to another, burden of proof may be an issue that needs addressing but as I have already shown it can be addressed in more ways than 1. But really is it of so much importance on this forum that it can't be put aside to facilitate a more lively and interesting discussion, are we really expecting life changing events to be caused by our banter.

Sure, I can put aside the fact that logical fallacies render arguments invalid, so long as you can put aside any pretense to logic or reason in making them.

AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

Yes, you are being extremely unreasonable, in that you are insisting that an argument which leverages logical fallacies be treated as though it were not invalid (or at least be spared the embarrassment of being exposed as such). That's pretty damned "unreasonable" wouldn't you say?