The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis. It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is. If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you. If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run). Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.). However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically. Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy? As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

So far so good.  But you're about to stumble over your own feet:

It doesn’t matter whether you’re asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms, claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else. The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims. Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

This is where you fail.  Asserting the existence of Plato's forms is a claim and has the burden of proof.  Not being convinced of the existence of those forms is not a claim and has no burden of proof.  Similarly asserting the existence of god or the resurrection are claims.  Being unconvinced of those claims is not. The reason for this is obvious.  It is not possible to prove a negative, therefore the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof.  

It works this way in a court of law.  No one is required to prove they didn't commit a crime, the burden is on the state to show that they did commit a crime. However, the burden shifts when we move from positive to negative claims.  If I sue you for money owed, the burden is on me to show there is a debt.  However, should I prove there is one, and you claim you've paid it, the burden is on you to prove payment.  Like the existence of the debt, payment is a positive claim.

Your suggestion that a person asserting that Plato's forms exist and someone asserting they don't both have the burden of proof is silly.  You have given both sides the burden of proof thus rendering the burden of proof meaningless.

The only time a negative claim is ever given the burden of proof is when that negative claim conflicts with propositions that have previously been established, are almost universally agreed to be accurate, and are generally relied upon.   The sun is not the center of the solar system would be an example of a negative claim holding the burden of proof.  That your particular god exists is not such a claim.