Wikipedia's entry on the Philosophic Burden of Proof
Ronedee, GC, and any of you other morons take a good, hard look at what it means when you assert a claim.
If someone has a position, there is an obligation to provide sufficient evidence to support it. This does not only hold true to claims about a deity, but about anything in a public debate.
So if you tell us that we have to prove your claim, then you are committing a fallacy, proving that you are ignorant. Stop being ignorant!
Ronedee, GC, and any of you other morons take a good, hard look at what it means when you assert a claim.
Quote:The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. This holds true for either arguing party.
If someone has a position, there is an obligation to provide sufficient evidence to support it. This does not only hold true to claims about a deity, but about anything in a public debate.
Quote:Holder of the Burden
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.
So if you tell us that we have to prove your claim, then you are committing a fallacy, proving that you are ignorant. Stop being ignorant!
